Toll Every Interstate

[Just the facts]

We would still have freight trains and freight train are 10X more efficient than trucks (and that doesn't count the cost of the 'free' road trucks drive on).

Rail freight is more efficient than truck freight | Grist

[Rover]

So? Those kinds of facts are included in real and objective studies. It doesn't change the fact of the impact of a complete infrastructure and the impact of the interstate system. These kind of one of factoids is merely a misdirection play and doesn't make any kind of argument. If this freight train vs truck cost factoid was the only important fact then any industry would be stupid to not ship by train...but they choose not to for many other reasons that affect their commercial economics.

[venture]

So? Those kinds of facts are included in real and objective studies. It doesn't change the fact of the impact of a complete infrastructure and the impact of the interstate system. These kind of one of factoids is merely a misdirection play and doesn't make any kind of argument. If this freight train vs truck cost factoid was the only important fact then any industry would be stupid to not ship by train...but they choose not to for many other reasons that affect their commercial economics.

You mean like throwing "Obamacare" in a post just as a diversion tactic? Pot...kettle.

[Rover]

You mean like throwing "Obamacare" in a post just as a diversion tactic? Pot...kettle.

No, like saying there are always unintended consequences with adding taxes (tolls are taxes). Just like Obamacare is a noble enough idea, it has had a chilling effect on a number of industries' hiring practices and may actually hurt those whom it intended to help....just like tolls that sound great in theory but could wind up hurting any number of important industries and therefore the general public. The context of the two issues made an appropriate illustration to the point and is only diversion if not understood.

[Just the facts]

So? Those kinds of facts are included in real and objective studies. It doesn't change the fact of the impact of a complete infrastructure and the impact of the interstate system. These kind of one of factoids is merely a misdirection play and doesn't make any kind of argument. If this freight train vs truck cost factoid was the only important fact then any industry would be stupid to not ship by train...but they choose not to for many other reasons that affect their commercial economics.

I'm not sure what you expect Rover. If you want to sit around and wait for a study before providing any more input don't let us stand in your way. Or, you can talk about the study we are talking about - it is the one that says toll all interstates.

http://reason.org/files/modernizing_...ll_finance.pdf

Executive Summary

The Interstate highway system is America’s most important surface transportation system. With
just 2.5% of the nation’s lane-miles of highway, it handles some 25% of all vehicle miles of travel.
It served to open the country to trade and travel, enabling the just-in-time logistics system at the
heart of U.S. goods movement. Yet the first-generation Interstate system is wearing out. Most of
the pavement has exceeded or is nearing its 50-year design life, meaning that nearly the entire
system will need reconstruction over the next two decades. In addition, more than a hundred
interchanges are major bottlenecks, needing redesign and reconstruction, and about 200 corridors
need additional lanes to cope with current and projected traffic.

The need for massive investment to transform the first-generation Interstate into what this report
calls Interstate 2.0 occurs just as our 20th-century highway funding system—based on fuel taxes
and state and federal highway trust funds—is running out of gas. Steady increases in vehicle fuel
economy, the lack of inflation indexing of fuel tax rates, and political gridlock over increasing fuel
tax rates all make it very difficult even to maintain current pavement and bridge conditions and
prevent congestion from getting even worse. The transportation community agrees that we need to
phase out fuel taxes and replace them with a more sustainable funding source, generally agreed to
be mileage-based user fees of some sort. But no consensus exists on how and when to do this.

[venture]

No, like saying there are always unintended consequences with adding taxes (tolls are taxes). Just like Obamacare is a noble enough idea, it has had a chilling effect on a number of industries' hiring practices and may actually hurt those whom it intended to help....just like tolls that sound great in theory but could wind up hurting any number of important industries and therefore the general public. The context of the two issues made an appropriate illustration to the point and is only diversion if not understood.

Oh I agree that tolling interstates could have a major impact...but what if it was at the expense of the gasoline taxes? Toll every highway and completely do away with the gas tax. States take over responsibility for operating the toll roads. You are now completely cutting the federal government out of the process except for enforcing design and safety requirements. The money doesn't touch the Fed. The states are then required to live within their means. Sure it may sting for some states, like Maine which has part of I-95 with only 1000 cars per day on it heading up towards Canada. In those cases...should it really be an interstate when it gets as much traffic as a neighborhood street?

[Rover]

Multiple studies have already been done...not waiting on any.

The one you link is from a far right organization associate with Koch, ALEC and others. Not saying they are wrong, but they do generally have an agenda to push. It is easy to find one or a few reports supporting a specific point of view. I tend to read multiple reports from multiple perspectives and try to find the things they agree on or cannot deny. If you go into any project with an already defined strong opinion you will generally see the result you want. I just try to be objective.

[Stew]

My take away from the Reason Foundations study was to toll all interstates in order to create a revenue stream that could serve as a basis to issue bonds (debt) in order to repair and considerably expand the current interstate system. Ditch the current pay-as-you-go model for a buy today and pay for it tomorrow racket. And that makes sense because why shouldn't the bankers get their cut of the nations freeway system.

I've changed my mind. I'm now in favor because quite frankly the market is in serious need of some new stable bonds.

[Jersey Boss]

Venture, the problem I see with turning it over to the states is no uniformity. One state figures it can save money with substandard construction which will affect interstate commerce. The interstate highway enabling act was called "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". Because it was formed after Ike saw the military importance of a system like this, and defense a common obligation among the states and commonwealths, it needs to primarily stay with federal oversight.

[venture]

Venture, the problem I see with turning it over to the states is no uniformity. One state figures it can save money with substandard construction which will affect interstate commerce. The interstate highway enabling act was called "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". Because it was formed after Ike saw the military importance of a system like this, and defense a common obligation among the states and commonwealths, it needs to primarily stay with federal oversight.

Why couldn't we have a similar situation like we do now with interstates as toll roads? Still have federal mandates and design specifications, but the states are in full control of the funding? I guess you could work a part in there with a licensing fee to the Fed to cover oversight expenses, but I'd rather cut as much out of Fed as possible. It could also be stipulated that no roadway can be removed from the interstate system if it was part of the original plan. Essentially if it is on the map below, the states are required to maintain interstate standards but others can be pulled down.

[Just the facts]

Congress uses federal highway funds to blackmail states. Just Google 'withhold federal highway funds'. They aren't going to give up that power but I 100% agree it would be better to just let the states do it. If some states choose not to keep their interstates up to standards without providing an alternative transportation network let them try it.

[Rover]

By using common standards then safe and good transportation infrastructure is assured for interstate commerce. That doesn't fit the libertarian point of view though as they could care less about interstate commerce, only what is cheapest for a particular individual. Isolationism, whether it is international, interstate, or intercity is a hallmark of the belief. Calling it blackmail is just spinning. But, if we are one country and a national economy that relies on such things as efficient infrastructure, then there have to be federal standards. While we are at it, why don't we have different railroad safety standards state to state....or why not county by county. That would certainly be safe and efficient too.

[Just the facts]

Intetstates are already built by the states to federal standards. That is why we have things like ODOT, CalTrans, and TxDOT, Even the federal taxes are collected locally and then sent to the federal government who turns around and sends back to the states that beg the most. All we are talking about is cutting out the middle man.

[hoya]

Some of you are mixing road debt with municipal services paid for by citizens of communities who shop and pay sales taxes. People who choose to live in suburbs pay for their services already. And the "Government" doesn't send cops anywhere. Municipal fire, police, etc are funded in individual cities at a local level BY THE RESIDENTS via sales taxes. Water and sewage are paid for by the users of the community as well. If you own property, you pay property tax. Schools are primarily funded by property taxes. It's apples and oranges. If you want to look at cities who are in debt, look no further than that great inner city utopia of Detroit.

If you move out to the middle of nowhere, but still technically within Oklahoma City, then everyone else's property taxes are paying for your services. Your taxes aren't sufficient to cover the increased costs from where you chose to live. Plus by moving farther out, you drive down home values in previously built-up areas. It's a cycle of urban abandonment and decay. This causes lower property values within the city, and causes funding problems.

[hoya]

No, like saying there are always unintended consequences with adding taxes (tolls are taxes). Just like Obamacare is a noble enough idea, it has had a chilling effect on a number of industries' hiring practices and may actually hurt those whom it intended to help....just like tolls that sound great in theory but could wind up hurting any number of important industries and therefore the general public. The context of the two issues made an appropriate illustration to the point and is only diversion if not understood.

Not only may that have to happen, it may be a totally intended consequence.

In the beginning Ike said "let there be interstates." And what happened is shipping companies found that it was easy to ship on these free roads using big trucks. In part, the trucking industry took off because of these dependable roads. Some of this obviously would have come at the expense of the rail companies. Now they themselves had benefited from government funding back in the previous century, so they aren't exactly victims. But when you give shipping companies free roads, they're going to use them.

Now we're at the point where these free roads are going to cost a lot of money to replace. A good amount of the damage done to them over the decades came from the trucking companies that have grown so substantially in the last 50 years. If we put in higher costs for those trucks to use our roads, part of it will be as a funding source, but part of it will be pressure for shipping companies to make more use of rail lines, which are more efficient and cheaper to maintain. It's the "quit tearing up our roads, jackass" plan.

[windowphobe]

If you move out to the middle of nowhere, but still technically within Oklahoma City, then everyone else's property taxes are paying for your services.

Um, no. The only revenue OKC, or any other municipality in this state, gets from property taxes is an amount supposedly sufficient for debt service. Oklahoma County forks over 16 mills to OKC. (Other counties may vary.) This is state law.

That said:

Your taxes aren't sufficient to cover the increased costs from where you chose to live. Plus by moving farther out, you drive down home values in previously built-up areas.

"Increased costs"? Definitely. How to recover those costs -- well, we've had threads on that before.

[Just the facts]

The point was people complain about high taxes but then choose to live in a location that requires higher taxes. It is like they think everyone else is wasting taxpayer money but them. When I joined the Tea Party I assumed everyone else that was joining had already figured out that sprawl was one of the leading cause of high taxes (and a whole host of other problems); boy was I wrong. When I bring it up at Tea Party events or with people I know it is like I start talking in a foreign language. They simply don't understand what sustainable government is and of all people on this planet that should understand it, I would think the Tea Party people would be at the top of the list, after all, I am a Tea Partier and I understand it. Maybe I am just not explaining it right .

[Rover]

Not only may that have to happen, it may be a totally intended consequence.

In the beginning Ike said "let there be interstates." And what happened is shipping companies found that it was easy to ship on these free roads using big trucks. In part, the trucking industry took off because of these dependable roads. Some of this obviously would have come at the expense of the rail companies. Now they themselves had benefited from government funding back in the previous century, so they aren't exactly victims. But when you give shipping companies free roads, they're going to use them.

Now we're at the point where these free roads are going to cost a lot of money to replace. A good amount of the damage done to them over the decades came from the trucking companies that have grown so substantially in the last 50 years. If we put in higher costs for those trucks to use our roads, part of it will be as a funding source, but part of it will be pressure for shipping companies to make more use of rail lines, which are more efficient and cheaper to maintain. It's the "quit tearing up our roads, jackass" plan.

Railroads cannot do what trucks do. It is ludicrous to believe that rail will ever serve the complex logistics requirements that enable all sorts of economic benefits that the trucking system does. Rail is PART of a system but will not and cannot be THE system. If you have ever worked logistics you know what I mean.

By the way, I believe there is almost three times the miles of freight railroad lines already existing in the US as there is interstate highways. Two thirds of it is class I.

[Just the facts]

Meanwhile, back at the farm... how do we pay to replace the aging interstate system? We built it the first time on debt. Are we just going to do that again?

[bluedogok]

I know Texas highways probably better than most anybody on this forum. I don't mean to be contradictory, but I have traveled thousands and thousands (and thousands) of miles of Texas roads in just about every section of the state over the last 30 plus years and I seriously have no idea where these "TONS of really crappy highways" in Texas are located. Granted there are temporary crappy areas where all the road construction is going on, but the finished products are top notch. From Interstates to US Highways to State Highways to many of the FMs...I've driven them all. Bottom line is that Texas has one of the best roads and road systems in the entire US. I've driven FMs that blow away some of the US Highways in other states. It's not really even debatable if you've actually driven the road system to any degree. It's just a fact and has nothing to do with any complex or whatever.

Texas roads are going bad in a hurry, some of it is county maintenance on FM/RM roads and their desire to chip seal the world with that crap. The roads around Central Texas changed greatly in the 9 years that I lived there (2003-12) and not for the better. In most cases the roads were better before they put that crap down than they were a year later.

I'm okay with it so long as we charge according to weight. It's not Ford Fiestas and Honda Fits causing wear and tear to our system, it's 18-wheelers. Let them pay for the damage we're subsidizing right now. Of course, that's a very academic point. There's no way something like this would make it out of Congress with all of the lobbies who'd be against it.

We would still have freight trains and freight train are 10X more efficient than trucks (and that doesn't count the cost of the 'free' road trucks drive on).

Rail freight is more efficient than truck freight | Grist

"THEY" wouldn't pay for it, "WE" would end up paying for it in higher prices to cover expenses. Remember the fuel surcharges on a lot of things back in 2008-09? Prices have just gone up to cover those costs. Add a $4.00 or more fuel tax (like Europe has) to every gallon and watch prices skyrocket as EVERYTHING uses fuel of some kind for delivery including the hallowed train system. Also, the majority of what we touch everyday has oil costs bundled into it either as a component of manufacture and shipping costs. There is a bunch of that is in all of these devices that we type all of the out on. Oil is not just for transportation.

[hoya]

Railroads cannot do what trucks do. It is ludicrous to believe that rail will ever serve the complex logistics requirements that enable all sorts of economic benefits that the trucking system does. Rail is PART of a system but will not and cannot be THE system. If you have ever worked logistics you know what I mean.

By the way, I believe there is almost three times the miles of freight railroad lines already existing in the US as there is interstate highways. Two thirds of it is class I.

I'm not saying railroads are going to completely replace trucks. I am saying that reducing what is effectively a subsidy for the trucking industry will change the way some goods are shipped. You change the price points, and more goods will be shipped by rail, when it is possible.

Will prices for shipped items go up? Of course they will. But we're talking about literally a trillion-plus dollars of investment that needs to be made to repair the interstates. That absolutely has to come from somewhere. Since we are paying for it anyway, the question is how can we structure those payments to end up with a more efficient system?

[HangryHippo]

Rover, what are these complex logistics requirements you believe trains can't serve?

[rte66man]

I didn't see it upthread, but under current Federal law, you cannot place a toll on EXISTING Interstate lanes. You would have to add lanes or build a completely new road in order to be able to toll an Interstate. Roads such as the Turner , etc were grandfathered in.

[Just the facts]

I didn't see it upthread, but under current Federal law, you cannot place a toll on EXISTING Interstate lanes. You would have to add lanes or build a completely new road in order to be able to toll an Interstate. Roads such as the Turner , etc were grandfathered in.

3 States (Missouri, Virginia, and North Carolina) currently are allowed to toll existing interstates but they have no reason to do so because they would just have to turn the money over to the federal government and they also feel that if they charge people to drive on the interstate it will hurt commerce in their states. Under the proposal from the Reason Foundation the tolls would be implemented over 20 years as freeways are rebuilt or expanded, with all new interstates opening as toll roads (ex. I-37, or whatever designation US69 will get in Eastern Oklahoma).

[Video Expert]

Texas roads are going bad in a hurry, some of it is county maintenance on FM/RM roads and their desire to chip seal the world with that crap. The roads around Central Texas changed greatly in the 9 years that I lived there (2003-12) and not for the better. In most cases the roads were better before they put that crap down than they were a year later.

I'm sure there are pockets of the FMs that are going bad, but I stand by my statement that the road system overall is still superior. For example, I just drove SH6 from Hempstead to Waco yesterday morning and it's a smooth, mostly controlled access 4-lane the whole way with only a little construction around Bryan-College Station. And that's not a US or IH route. Much better and smoother than the stretch of I-35 I drove last night through Murray and Garvin counties.