Tolling I-80 Not Dead Yet

[PAHighways]

I don't see what PA even WANTS to toll I-80.

Take the money acquired from tolls and use it to supplement PennDOT's budget.  However, as I said before, the idea has been floated basically since the last mile of concrete was poured and it still hasn't happened.  There is no need getting worked up over nothing.

[J N Winkler]

The general idea behind the I-80 tolling is for PennDOT to charge the PTC a stiff rental fee (about $400 million annually, IIRC) for the right to charge tolls on I-80.  The deal was structured this way because PennDOT and the PTC were required by FHWA to show that all of the money collected in tolls on I-80 would go either to improvements on I-80 or to expenses inextricably linked with operating it as a toll road.  FHWA saw through this financial chicanery, so it is not surprising PennDOT and the PTC are trying to get the rules of the game changed.

It has long been argued that the real reason for tolling I-80 is additional subsidy for SEPTA.  In its last submission to FHWA, PennDOT and the PTC noted that Act 44 (which IIRC authorized state-level pursuit of the I-80 tolling idea) specifically prohibited the proceeds of I-80 tolling from being spent on transit, but in reality I think SEPTA would have gotten enlarged subsidy through teeming and lading with other highway monies.

[PAHighways]

The idea has already been discussed ad nauseam.

It wasn't just SEPTA that supposedly was in line, but also Allegheny County's Port Authority.

[mightyace]

PA/I-80 anti-toll application bill rejected in state house

The latest in relatively meaningless gestures on this ongoing soap opera.

It is meaningless because,

1) PENNDOT and the PTC have no advertised plans to resubmit the tolling application.
2) Even if it had passed, who says another bill couldn't have repealed it or the courts struck the bill down?

[leifvanderwall]

I think tolling is not a bad thing. Many people spend their loose change on vending machines buying potato chips and beef jerky. You want good roads and more new roads, you have to open the wallet. Many people take for granted the maintenance that is actually needed. Believe me I live in Michigan and drive I-94 everyday. Drivers can not depend on state budgets alone to cover the tab on road repairs. Leif Vanderwall

[PAHighways]

Many people spend their loose change on vending machines buying potato chips and beef jerky. You want good roads and more new roads, you have to open the wallet.

They'd rather open their wallets for the chips and jerky.

[J N Winkler]

My standard answer to the "Why not pay tolls" argument is, "Why not just raise the gasoline tax?"  Tolls are actually quite an expensive way to fund new infrastructure--the per-mile cost of using even an older toll road maintained by a public authority (typically around 5c-10c) is still about two to five times what you pay in gasoline tax in a car which gets 30 MPG and is driven largely in a state where the gasoline tax is about 50c per gallon.

I don't buy the argument that raising the gas tax is "political suicide" or "the political third rail."  Political decisions require courage, and very few politicians can expect to creep to the top by being cautious and avoiding the difficult decisions.  Bill Clinton was voted out of office (as Arkansas governor) for raising the gasoline tax, and Obama espoused risky positions at a time when he was behind in the polls and they could easily have sunk his campaign.

[Revive 755]

^ I think raising the vehicle licensing fee would be better.  Since it is only paid once a year or less, people are more likely not to notice/remember it , whereas a gas tax increase will be remembered every time you drive pass a gas station.

[mightyace]

If politicians could raise the gas tax without it being announced, they'd probably do it because how many of us know how much our state gas tax is?

IMHO The biggest problem with a gas tax is that it is a flat amount regardless of the price of gas.  Now, if the gas tax was done as a "sales tax" or percentage of the price then the tax would automatically rise as prices rise.

The only state that I knew of that did anything like that IIRC was Indiana, they imposed their state sales tax on top of the gas tax.  I have no idea if that is still true, if it ever was.

[J N Winkler]

There are other states where there is an ad valorem component to motor fuel taxation, generally by assessing a sales tax in addition to the excise tax.  California is one of them and this is one reason why the marginal gas tax was about 50c-60c in the summer of 2008 when gasoline cost about $4 a gallon.

The main argument for basing highway funding on an excise tax on motor fuel, as opposed to an ad valorem tax or licensing fees, is that the amount paid in tax is roughly proportionate to use.  The tax is collected either off the rack or at the terminal in many states, which limits collection costs and opportunities for evasion, and the tax is paid continuously in small amounts at every fillup rather than in an annual lump sum which the paycheck-to-paycheck folk find hard to budget for.  It really is very hard to beat excise taxes on motor fuels as a funding mechanism for highways.  The only improvements I would suggest would be indexation so that the purchasing power of the tax remains consistent with inflation, and an easier method of fuel and mileage proration for interstate trucking.

I have never seen a detailed analysis or defense of the position that raising the gasoline tax is or has to be the third rail of statehouse politics.  My best guess is that the public tends to assume that gasoline tax revenues go into the state general fund and are used for purposes which have nothing to do with highways (or other forms of social investment like education).  Therefore, when a state legislator is reported as having voted to increase the gasoline tax, people think, "Throw the bum out and keep the money."

In actuality, a substantial proportion (if not a majority) of states require that gasoline tax revenues go off-budget and are used only for highway-related purposes, and in those states it is relatively easy to get an increase in the gasoline tax.  But even in these states it is increasingly common to market tax increases by publishing lists of projects which will be funded out of the additional revenues.  The case in point is Washington State's nickel tax.

[PAHighways]

Rendell:  Congress Should Remove Restrictions on Tolling of Interstates

[74/171FAN]

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4180  Tollroadsnews article on PA reapplying to get I-80 tolled again.   

[vdeane]

Rendell:  Congress Should Remove Restrictions on Tolling of Interstates

Unfortunately this could get passed, as many congressmen don't care about an issue at all unless it affects them and it would raise revenue.

[mightyace]

Here is an article detailing why the Feds declined the I-80 tolling proposition last fall and why it won't succeed under the current Act 44 legislation.

Problems for Penn Pike in getting Feds OK to toll I-80 in legal counsel Memo

[PAHighways]

Turnpike Plans Second Pitch for I-80 Tolls

[Sykotyk]

There's only three direct free accesses for eastbound traffic on interstates to the northeast:

I-81/I-78
I-80
I-86/NY-17/I-88 (which then exits you to the Mass Pike)

Take away I-80, and you'll see more traffic following I-86 to NY-17 or I-88 to get to the northeast.

Just raise the fuel tax if you need to fund rebuilding I-80 and funding transit projects. But, politicians are too chicken to raise taxes 'directly', so instead they end-around a usage tax.

Sykotyk

[mightyace]

There's only three direct free accesses for eastbound traffic on interstates to the northeast:

I-81/I-78
I-80
I-86/NY-17/I-88 (which then exits you to the Mass Pike)

Take away I-80, and you'll see more traffic following I-86 to NY-17 or I-88 to get to the northeast.

Just raise the fuel tax if you need to fund rebuilding I-80 and funding transit projects. But, politicians are too chicken to raise taxes 'directly', so instead they end-around a usage tax.

Sykotyk

I've said the same thing about I-86.  And, the politicians try to "justify" this as I-80 in PA carries much more through traffic than local traffic. i.e. The people paying are not the people voting! 

[vdeane]

I wonder if PA will ever realize that the only way to get I-80 tolls approved will be to abandon the reason for wanting them in the first place: to use I-80 as a cash cow.  Other realizations that PA will probably never have is the fact that constructing the booths and paying toll operators will nullify a lot of the revenue they hope to generate; it costs money to raise money, something that government at all levels fail to realize.

[mightyace]

Other realizations that PA will probably never have is the fact that constructing the booths and paying toll operators will nullify a lot of the revenue they hope to generate; it costs money to raise money, something that government at all levels fail to realize.

The latest plans on the PA Turnpike website (www.paturnpike.com - The I-80 Project) have booths and use all-electronic tolling.  However, while the costs of this type of operation is less than manned booths, it is still significant.

[vdeane]

So ez-pass would be required if PA were ever to succeed.  It will not be good for people without a transponder; I know on ON 407 there are significant fees if you don't have one to cover the costs of mailing one.

[PAHighways]

Next year marks the 40th anniversary of the completion of I-80/Keystone Shortway, and the idea of tolling it has been talked about just as long.  My feeling is if it was going to happen, it would have already.  Something tells me when the golden anniversary rolls around, they'll still be talking about tolling.

[mightyace]

Next year marks the 40th anniversary of the completion of I-80/Keystone Shortway, and the idea of tolling it has been talked about just as long.  My feeling is if it was going to happen, it would have already.  Something tells me when the golden anniversary rolls around, they'll still be talking about tolling.

And, before the Interstate Highway Act was passed, the state officials were thinking of building I-80 or something like it (possibly along US 6) as another part of the PA Turnpike System.  I bet state officials wish they had done that back then!  Because if it had been a toll road from the beginning like the PA Turnpike, then they could siphon off tolls from it just like they are doing with the existing system.

[PAHighways]

And, before the Interstate Highway Act was passed, the state officials were thinking of building I-80 or something like it (possibly along US 6) as another part of the PA Turnpike System.

The PTC wanted their Keystone Shortway, or officially referred to as the Sharon to Stroudsburg Lateral Connection, to follow the path of current 80.  The state wanted to put an Interstate along 6, which would have pushed east-west traffic far to the north and off a tolled shortcut.  Preliminary work had begun on Keystone Shortway, so much so that it was indicated as under construction on one of the late 1950's Turnpike maps.

I bet state officials wish they had done that back then!  Because if it had been a toll road from the beginning like the PA Turnpike, then they could siphon off tolls from it just like they are doing with the existing system.

Or siphon it off one of their other tolled Interstates.

[mightyace]

The never ending saga continues:

Pennsylvania to submit new application to Feds to toll I-80

Notice that the "I-80" shield on the map is in the shape of a U.S. route? 

[vdeane]

I'd love to see how the Pennsylvania Turnpike plans to collect tolls on US 80.  Perhaps someone should tell them that US 80 is quite far away to the south.