Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[1]

A new poll conducted by Appalachian Magazine between the dates of January 25-28, reveals that the overwhelming majority of respondents are opposed to a bipartisan proposal, which includes support from the state’s Democratic governor, as well as leading Republicans, that will effectively turn Interstate 81 into a toll road.

"Polls" are an inherently bad way of measuring anything, are often wrong, particularly by a magazine that is not a recognized polling organization in the first place.

8% support is low enough that even if it is an intentionally biased poll, I can't see the actual number being above 25%.

[sprjus4]

A new poll conducted by Appalachian Magazine between the dates of January 25-28, reveals that the overwhelming majority of respondents are opposed to a bipartisan proposal, which includes support from the state’s Democratic governor, as well as leading Republicans, that will effectively turn Interstate 81 into a toll road.

"Polls" are an inherently bad way of measuring anything, are often wrong, particularly by a magazine that is not a recognized polling organization in the first place.

8% support is low enough that even if it is an intentionally biased poll, I can't see the actual number being above 25%.

Agreed.

[kalvado]

8% support is low enough that even if it is an intentionally biased poll, I can't see the actual number being above 25%.

And even then it is a bad question to ask.
-Would you support such and such improvements of I-81?
-Would you still support those improvement if that means tolling?

[cl94]

As someone who conducts surveys as part of work, the question is phrased in a way that is designed to elicit a "no" response. The question is: Virginia legislators are considering placing tolls on I-81. What is your opinion?. Of COURSE people will answer "no" because it's not providing the full story here! The tolls would be in order to fund improvements, which the question nor the post containing it does not mention. An unbiased question could be: Virginia legislators are considering placing tolls on I-81 in order to fund improvements, potentially including roadway widening and improved incident response. What is your opinion?

It should be noted that this is a highly-unscientific poll conducted using Facebook by a page whose target audience will be opposed to increasing the cost of anything. Facebook polls are VERY easy to manipulate. Heck, there are groups on Facebook that exist to swing Facebook polls in one direction or the other! Because of how the poll was done and the demographic that responded, I'm going to dismiss the results as not representative of the population. Come back with an unbiased survey that's representative of the population and my opinion may change. Again, as someone who does this for a living, I wouldn't even think about using something as easy to manipulate as a Facebook poll.

[Beltway]

A new poll conducted by Appalachian Magazine between the dates of January 25-28, reveals that the overwhelming majority of respondents are opposed to a bipartisan proposal, which includes support from the state’s Democratic governor, as well as leading Republicans, that will effectively turn Interstate 81 into a toll road.

"Polls" are an inherently bad way of measuring anything, are often wrong, particularly by a magazine that is not a recognized polling organization in the first place.

8% support is low enough that even if it is an intentionally biased poll, I can't see the actual number being above 25%.

If it is an "intentionally biased poll", then the reality could just as logically be the opposite, or could be 60% or more in favor.  Best thing to do is to disregard it.

[hbelkins]

I think you'll find that any poll, scientific or not, will result in the majority of people along the I-81 corridor being opposed to tolls, even if it's stated that the tolls will be used to fund improvements. I'd say most of those people will say to reprioritize existing funding and quit spending so much on NoVa.

[sprjus4]

I think you'll find that any poll, scientific or not, will result in the majority of people along the I-81 corridor being opposed to tolls, even if it's stated that the tolls will be used to fund improvements. I'd say most of those people will say to reprioritize existing funding and quit spending so much on NoVa.

I can agree to that with some extent, there needs to be more transportation funding coming towards I-81. But I-95 is way higher of a priority than I-81. I-81 has an AADT of around 50,000 and is 4 lanes, generally runs smoothly, but still has recurring delays occasionally. Mainly has safety concerns. I-95 has an AADT of over 200,000, only 6 lanes, and has hours on end of traffic jams daily, and needs at least $1 billion for 8 lanes to Fredericksburg, along with interchange improvements, enhanced operations, etc. The only fix now is a band-aid fix, slapping some HO/T lanes in the median. It will not fully solve the issue of traffic as much as interchange reconfigurations, auxiliary lanes between interchanges (10 lanes total in these sections), and continuous 8 lanes in each direction would.

[cl94]

I'd say most of those people will say to reprioritize existing funding and quit spending so much on NoVa.

Well, do keep in mind that 30% of the state population lives in Northern Virginia. Add in Richmond and Hampton Roads and you have 2/3 of the population. Of course transportation funding will generally be spent in those areas because that's where the people are!

Most of the recent NoVA projects are P3s and/or funded by the regional gas tax (as improving transit/carpool access). Want to get stuff in the rest of the state done faster? Maybe introduce a P3, because that's how stuff is getting done in VA right now.

[kalvado]

I'd say most of those people will say to reprioritize existing funding and quit spending so much on NoVa.

Well, do keep in mind that 30% of the state population lives in Northern Virginia. Add in Richmond and Hampton Roads and you have 2/3 of the population. Of course transportation funding will generally be spent in those areas because that's where the people are!

Most of the recent NoVA projects are P3s and/or funded by the regional gas tax (as improving transit/carpool access). Want to get stuff in the rest of the state done faster? Maybe introduce a P3, because that's how stuff is getting done in VA right now.

Its a whole different topic, but distributing transportation funds according to population counts is not always logical.
It may be a good metrics for commute related funding of urban roads, but long haul stretches through sparsely populated areas need a different consideration. And that is exactly what we're talking about - a long haul stretch amounting to lots of travel mileage, not proportional to local population numbers and with a different car/truck ratio.

[cl94]

And that is exactly what we're talking about - a long haul stretch amounting to lots of travel mileage, not proportional to local population numbers and with a different car/truck ratio.

Which is precisely why tolls would be useful - a lot of users along I-81 are not local. Pass the funding burden along to the trucking companies, etc. But due to various laws, you can't only toll out-of-state drivers, hence why they'd offer a "season pass".

[kalvado]

And that is exactly what we're talking about - a long haul stretch amounting to lots of travel mileage, not proportional to local population numbers and with a different car/truck ratio.

Which is precisely why tolls would be useful - a lot of users along I-81 are not local. Pass the funding burden along to the trucking companies, etc. But due to various laws, you can't only toll out-of-state drivers, hence why they'd offer a "season pass".

WHich is again only part of the story as all vehicles pay gas tax - often not exactly where that gas is burnt. Under the assumption that gas is still in-state (may or may not be true), and if road budget is funded by gas taxes (which may only partially be true), more traveled areas should get more budget funding regardless of population counts as those roads are where actual taxable activity occurs. Total benefit for population - as in goods transportation - is another way of looking at it.

[sprjus4]

And that is exactly what we're talking about - a long haul stretch amounting to lots of travel mileage, not proportional to local population numbers and with a different car/truck ratio.

Which is precisely why tolls would be useful - a lot of users along I-81 are not local. Pass the funding burden along to the trucking companies, etc. But due to various laws, you can't only toll out-of-state drivers, hence why they'd offer a "season pass".

The only issue with passing the burden to "trucking companies" is, A) the truckers themselves have to pay the tolls, the companies don't, and B) the cost of the tolls will now pass onto the consumer in higher shipping costs.

Also, I find it funny how we can't toll out-of-state only, but we can place a an expensive toll evasion fine on those exiting and re-entering around tolling points.

[froggie]

B) the cost of the tolls will now pass onto the consumer in higher shipping costs.

Countered by the lower transportation costs that the improvements will provide.

[sprjus4]

B) the cost of the tolls will now pass onto the consumer in higher shipping costs.

Countered by the lower transportation costs that the improvements will provide.

How? I-81 isn't parked for half the day moving 5 MPH. It's, for the most part, an efficient corridor. The improvements won't "lower transportation costs", you're only adding a $55 toll one-way. And there's no guarantee that the interstate still won't have issues. It's not widening it all to 6 lanes. It's not eliminating the common "wreck of the day" blocking the interstate. It might reduce wait times in those instances, but this is no full make-over on I-81, and even if it was, it wouldn't do much in "lowering transportation costs" in any way.

[VTGoose]

Moderators, can you please move all the speeding posts to somewhere else?
Thanks,

Just because you disagree with something does not mean it should be moved. The topic veered slightly off topic, and is now back on topic. I see no issues.

The speeding posts have nothing to do with I-81.  They belong in a different thread, probably under Off Topic.

After all, a moderator already -deleted- a whole slew of these type posts yesterday, and then the same type posts started up again!

I can run an Online Flame Thrower with the best of them … but I don't want to do it here.   

Can we get the whining about speed trap posts moved somewhere else? Somewhere off the coast of Virginia Beach would be a good spot.

[Beltway]

Moderators, can you please move all the speeding posts to somewhere else?  Thanks,

Just because you disagree with something does not mean it should be moved. The topic veered slightly off topic, and is now back on topic. I see no issues.

The speeding posts have nothing to do with I-81.  They belong in a different thread, probably under Off Topic.
After all, a moderator already -deleted- a whole slew of these type posts yesterday, and then the same type posts started up again!
I can run an Online Flame Thrower with the best of them … but I don't want to do it here.

Can we get the whining about speed trap posts moved somewhere else? Somewhere off the coast of Virginia Beach would be a good spot.

Your whining needs to go to somewhere like Antarctica, you can enjoy their 'summer'.

BTW, I was the one who attempted to pull things back on topic with my post about the 2003 Fluor Virginia Inc.  proposal for a $1.8 billion project to widen the entire I-81 highway to six lanes by 2011, to be financed with tolls thru the TEA-21 ISRRPP mechanism.  This shows how costly that delay can be, given the massive increases in highway construction costs since 2005.

The same thing happened with the parallel Midtown Tunnel and MLK Freeway extension project.  There was a proposal in 2000 to build the project for $600 million supported by tolls on both tunnels.  When they finally built it 2012-2016 it cost $1.4 billion for the same construction, with concomitant impacts on the toll levels.

The major rehabs on the Downtown tunnels IIRC were not in the 2000 proposal, but that only added about $100 million, so my overall point remains.

[hbelkins]

Are there any figures available on gas tax revenues collected by county? Even though "all the people" are in NoVA, Richmond and Hampton Roads, do those areas generate a percentage of gas tax revenues anywhere near their percentage of the population? I'd say not, because commute distances are probably shorter, and lots of people use public transportation.

At any rate, I'm one of those who prefers that DOTs get away from spending on congestion mitigation in urban areas in favor of safety improvements and economic development/accessibility.

[Beltway]

Are there any figures available on gas tax revenues collected by county? Even though "all the people" are in NoVA, Richmond and Hampton Roads, do those areas generate a percentage of gas tax revenues anywhere near their percentage of the population? I'd say not, because commute distances are probably shorter, and lots of people use public transportation.

That would suggest that average annual odometer mileage per automobile is less in the major metro areas as compared to the lesser populated areas, and I don't think that is the case.  Outside of New York City the U.S. metro market share of transit is 5% or less.  Many commute trips in metro areas are on local arterials with many traffic signals and the fuel mileage is lower than on highway trips and more fuel is consumed per mile.

[kalvado]

Are there any figures available on gas tax revenues collected by county? Even though "all the people" are in NoVA, Richmond and Hampton Roads, do those areas generate a percentage of gas tax revenues anywhere near their percentage of the population? I'd say not, because commute distances are probably shorter, and lots of people use public transportation.

That would suggest that average annual odometer mileage per automobile is less in the major metro areas as compared to the lesser populated areas, and I don't think that is the case.  Outside of New York City the U.S. metro market share of transit is 5% or less.  Many commute trips in metro areas are on local arterials with many traffic signals and the fuel mileage is lower than on highway trips and more fuel is consumed per mile.

$45M of gas taxes for transit in NoVA is not that big of a number, but still noticeable...

[froggie]

B) the cost of the tolls will now pass onto the consumer in higher shipping costs.

Countered by the lower transportation costs that the improvements will provide.

How? I-81 isn't parked for half the day moving 5 MPH. It's, for the most part, an efficient corridor. The improvements won't "lower transportation costs", you're only adding a $55 toll one-way. And there's no guarantee that the interstate still won't have issues. It's not widening it all to 6 lanes. It's not eliminating the common "wreck of the day" blocking the interstate. It might reduce wait times in those instances, but this is no full make-over on I-81, and even if it was, it wouldn't do much in "lowering transportation costs" in any way.

You're completely ignoring the impact of incidents, which are a regular occurrence on I-81.  Incident management (clearing incidents faster) and safety improvements (which will reduce the likelihood of many incidents) are part of the package and will reduce transportation costs associated with incidents and their subsequent delays.

[sprjus4]

B) the cost of the tolls will now pass onto the consumer in higher shipping costs.

Countered by the lower transportation costs that the improvements will provide.

How? I-81 isn't parked for half the day moving 5 MPH. It's, for the most part, an efficient corridor. The improvements won't "lower transportation costs", you're only adding a $55 toll one-way. And there's no guarantee that the interstate still won't have issues. It's not widening it all to 6 lanes. It's not eliminating the common "wreck of the day" blocking the interstate. It might reduce wait times in those instances, but this is no full make-over on I-81, and even if it was, it wouldn't do much in "lowering transportation costs" in any way.

You're completely ignoring the impact of incidents, which are a regular occurrence on I-81.  Incident management (clearing incidents faster) and safety improvements (which will reduce the likelihood of many incidents) are part of the package and will reduce transportation costs associated with incidents and their subsequent delays.

As far as I'm aware, most trucks make it through just fine, occasionally one has a huge accident tying traffic up, but other than that, it's fine as is. It's not a daily occurrence. For the most part, nothing will change with the exception of higher shipping costs due to $55 tolls.

When there's a huge accident, incident management can help to some extent, but it's still going to take a while to clear.

I'm not saying I'm against the proposed improvements, I'm just saying it's not going to reduce shipping costs in most occasions, because most of the trucks who have an easy drive through Virginia will continue having that easy drive + $55 toll. Those tied up by an accident or in one every once in a while will see slight reduction, but not everyday will that happen.

[cl94]

Let's put it this way: Google gives an estimated travel time of 4:30 - 5:30 to travel the length of I-81 VA based on normal traffic conditions on a weekday. That amount of variation is ridiculous for a mostly-rural corridor and that's just considering normal traffic.

Is I-81 always bad? No. But when it is bad (far more often than a typical rural freeway), it is BAD. I've been stuck in standstill traffic on that thing on multiple occasions and I don't travel I-81 VA particularly often.

[Beltway]

For the most part, nothing will change with the exception of higher shipping costs due to $55 tolls.

Um, no.  The proposed truck toll is 10 cents per mile, so that would be $33.  Much less than your figure.

[sprjus4]

For the most part, nothing will change with the exception of higher shipping costs due to $55 tolls.

Um, no.  The proposed truck toll is 10 cents per mile, so that would be $33.  Much less than your figure.

You might want to check your facts. The initial truck toll rate is 17 cents per mile, and cars is 11 cents per mile. $55 for trucks, $36 for cars.

That initial toll rate will also eventually increase as years progress...

[Beltway]

For the most part, nothing will change with the exception of higher shipping costs due to $55 tolls.

Um, no.  The proposed truck toll is 10 cents per mile, so that would be $33.  Much less than your figure.

You might want to check your facts. The initial truck toll rate is 17 cents per mile, and cars is 11 cents per mile. $55 for trucks, $36 for cars.  That initial toll rate will also eventually increase as years progress...

The exact figure has not been determined yet.  The proposed numbers presented at the monthly CTB meeting (I was there) two weeks ago were 7 cents per mile for cars and 10 cents per mile for large trucks.  For the entire 325 miles that would be $22 and $33 rounded respectively.   The annual pass for corridor residents may be as low as $25.