Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think this is a good ideal if 1) some of the money actually went to public transportation and 2) the tolls are place strategically to make those in single occupant cars think about using other methods. For example a toll on I-75 south right before I-285 near Cumberland.
Unless the existing taxes are prohibited from being used on the road, it's effectively double taxing. People will pay once through property/sales/whatever taxes, then again when they drive on the road. Charge the people that benefit from it through taxes and be done with it. Stop trying to play games with "users" and other ways of creating free loaders that benefit greatly from the road but don't have to pay into it.
Existing "property/sales/whatever taxes" should be prohibited from being used for roads. All future maintenance and new lanes should be paid by direct user fees.
Existing "property/sales/whatever taxes" should be prohibited from being used for roads. All future maintenance and new lanes should be paid by direct user fees.
So why shouldn't all the people that benefit from the roads pay into maintaining them? You do you also support a $50 entrance fee to every park? Or only the parents of students to pay into the schools?
I honestly don't see why some people are shocked at this. This idea has been in the works for some time. In a day and age where providing basic government services has become highly controversial, tolls are increasingly being viewed as a reliable source of road maintenance revenue.
Wouldn't it be ironic if 400 went right back to becoming a tollway?
The whole "only people who use roads should pay for them" is a ridiculous argument unless you want to just eliminate all taxes except sales tax. That way, only people who use things pay for them.
But even that is silly because guess who uses interstates more than anybody? That's right....trucks. And if tolls are put on roads, guess who also has to pay them? Right again, trucks! Then, guess who flips the bill for the increased transportation costs? People who buy goods that are transported. You got it again...EVERYBODY.
So it really doesn't matter, if they put tolls on roads, it's just going to result in high prices for everything for everybody because who benefits from having quality roadways? We all do.
To keep things fair, though, I think maybe what we ought to do is just eliminate the MARTA tax and let the people who ride it pay for it through increased fares. Why should others have to pay for it?
While we're at it, we might as well privatize police and fire services. People whose homes catch on fire and victims of crime should be the ones to fund these operations, not everybody else.
Unless the existing taxes are prohibited from being used on the road, it's effectively double taxing. People will pay once through property/sales/whatever taxes, then again when they drive on the road. Charge the people that benefit from it through taxes and be done with it.
From what I understand, it is currently illegal for toll roads to be funded with revenues from federal motor fuel taxes.
I think that states can use their portion of motor fuel taxes to fund toll roads if they so desire, but in almost all cases the tolls allow the controlled-access roadways that they are collected on to become self-funded roadways without the assistance of revenues from federal and/or state motor fuel taxes, particularly when tolls are collected on a high-traffic/high-capacity controlled-access road corridor.
Because tolls allow a controlled-access roadway to become a self-funded roadway, that roadway becomes one fewer roadway that state motor fuel tax revenues have to used on, allowing state motor fuel tax revenues to be shifted to and used on all the other roads in the state network which are untolled and incapable of paying for their own maintenance needs.
This was the case with Georgia 400 before the tolls were taken off of the road.
Georgia 400 being a tolled roadway allowed it to be a self-funded roadway which the state did not have to spend any of its severely-limited and dwindling federal or state motor fuel tax revenues on to maintain.
That's because GA 400 not only paid to maintain itself, but took in enough revenues from its tolls to help pay the maintenance costs for untolled state roads after GA 400's maintenance costs were paid for.
The state was basically using the excess revenues from GA 400's tolls to fatten-up a state transportation budget that was rapidly-shrinking everywhere else outside of the GA 400 toll revenue which was the ONLY part of the state transportation budget that was either staying steady and/or even growing because of the continued increase in the amount of traffic on GA 400 since its opening in 1993.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW
Stop trying to play games with "users" and other ways of creating free loaders that benefit greatly from the road but don't have to pay into it.
Tolls can actually be a fairer way of funding a road than fuel taxes because, unlike with motor fuel taxes, every motorist who uses a toll road is charged when they use it.
In some cases, particularly on a shorter-stretch of roadway or in smaller states, motor fuel taxes can be "evaded" by motorists who are able to drive through a state without stopping to pay for gas.
Take for example Northeastern states (like the states of Rhode Island or Delaware or Massachusetts, etc) where some of the states may be so small or some stretches of major highway through the state may be so short that one can pass through the state without stopping for gas.
Being the largest state land area-wise east of the Mississippi River, Georgia is obviously not a small state. But Georgia does have 3 stretches of major highways where it is possible to pass through the state without stopping for gas on I-85 (which only has 177 miles of roadway in GA), I-95 (which only has 112 miles of roadway in GA) and I-59 (which only runs through GA for 20 miles in the extreme NW corner of the state).
Under the current motor fuel tax funding setup, many out-of-state motorists are able to pass through the state of Georgia on those 3 highways (I-85, I-95 and I-59) without having to stop and pay the state motor fuel tax when they buy fuel.
The inability of the State of Georgia to collect motor fuel tax revenue from each out-of-state motorist that uses those 3 Interstate highways is especially important because it is the traffic from out-of-state motorists that helps to effect massive traffic jams on Interstates 85 and 95 (...especially on I-95 where most of the traffic on the roadway is very-heavy interstate traffic traveling to and from the resort state of Florida, but also on I-85 where heavy interstate traffic traveling to and from Atlanta and between the resort and industrial areas of the Gulf Coast and the population centers of the Piedmont and the Northeast combines with extremely-heavy commuter traffic through metro Atlanta to create near-total gridlock on the road during peak hours).
The out-of-state freight trucks on Interstates 95 and 85 also cause much damage to those roadways while passing through the state effecting the need for frequent maintenance and repairs.
The inability of the State of Georgia to collect from each vehicle (freight truck and non-freight truck traffic) that uses the Interstate 85 and 95 roadways leaves the state short of the amount of money that is needed to provide the frequent maintenance and repairs that those roadways need on a never-ending constant basis.
Putting tolls (cash-back inflation-indexed distance-based electronic tolls at rates of $0.06-0.10 per-mile for most vehicles in 2014 dollars) on major superhighways like I-85 and I-95 will enable the State of Georgia to collect the amount of money that is actually needed to keep up the frequent and never-ending maintenance and repairs on those extremely-heavily used transcontinental roadways without having to continue to resort to excessive borrowing and new debt creation.
The States of North Carolina and Virginia already have long-term plans to put electronic tolls on their sections of Interstate 95 as a means of obtaining additional revenue so that they can upgrade and improve the roadway so that it can better handle the very-heavy interstate (out-of-state) traffic that uses the roadway.
In particular, NC has plans to upgrade its currently 4-lane rural section of I-95 by widening much of it to 8 lanes, raising and rebuilding outdated bridges, improving interchanges, improving night-lighting, widening emergency shoulders to 14 feet in width, etc.
Last edited by Born 2 Roll; 05-01-2014 at 12:42 AM..
Tolls can actually be a fairer way of funding a road than fuel taxes because, unlike with motor fuel taxes, every motorist who uses a toll road is charged when they use it.
In some cases, particularly on a shorter-stretch of roadway or in smaller states, motor fuel taxes can be "evaded" by motorists who are able to drive through a state without stopping to pay for gas.
Take for example Northeastern states (like the states of Rhode Island or Delaware or Massachusetts, etc) where some of the states may be so small or some stretches of major highway through the state may be so short that one can pass through the state without stopping for gas.
Being the largest state land area-wise east of the Mississippi River, Georgia is obviously not a small state. But Georgia does have 3 stretches of major highways where it is possible to pass through the state without stopping for gas on I-85 (which only has 177 miles of roadway in GA), I-95 (which only has 112 miles of roadway in GA) and I-59 (which only runs through GA for 20 miles in the extreme NW corner of the state).
Under the current motor fuel tax funding setup, many out-of-state motorists are able to pass through the state of Georgia on those 3 highways (I-85, I-95 and I-59) without having to stop and pay the state motor fuel tax when they buy fuel.
The inability of the State of Georgia to collect motor fuel tax revenue from each out-of-state motorist that uses those 3 Interstate highways is especially important because it is the traffic from out-of-state motorists that helps to effect massive traffic jams on Interstates 85 and 95 (...especially on I-95 where most of the traffic on the roadway is very-heavy interstate traffic traveling to and from the resort state of Florida, but also on I-85 where heavy interstate traffic traveling to and from Atlanta and between the resort and industrial areas of the Gulf Coast and the population centers of the Piedmont and the Northeast combines with extremely-heavy commuter traffic through metro Atlanta to create near-total gridlock on the road during peak hours).
The out-of-state freight trucks on Interstates 95 and 85 also cause much damage to those roadways while passing through the state effecting the need for frequent maintenance and repairs.
The inability of the State of Georgia to collect from each vehicle (freight truck and non-freight truck traffic) that uses the Interstate 85 and 95 roadways leaves the state short of the amount of money that is needed to provide the frequent maintenance and repairs that those roadways need on a never-ending constant basis.
Putting tolls (cash-back inflation-indexed distance-based electronic tolls at rates of $0.06-0.10 per-mile for most vehicles in 2014 dollars) on major superhighways like I-85 and I-95 will enable the State of Georgia to collect the amount of money that is actually needed to keep up the frequent and never-ending maintenance and repairs on those extremely-heavily used transcontinental roadways without having to continue to resort to excessive borrowing and new debt creation.
The States of North Carolina and Virginia already have long-term plans to put electronic tolls on their sections of Interstate 95 as a means of obtaining additional revenue so that they can upgrade and improve the roadway so that it can better handle the very-heavy interstate (out-of-state) traffic that uses the roadway.
In particular, NC has plans to upgrade its currently 4-lane rural section of I-95 by widening much of it to 8 lanes, raising and rebuilding outdated bridges, improving interchanges, improving night-lighting, widening emergency shoulders to 14 feet in width, etc.
How are tolls fair? Let me give you this scenario (this about the 5th time I've used it, so I've gotten good at it). Let's take I-59 in NW Georgia. With its 20 little miles. It still passes the town of Trenton which is a decent town. It's not a huge town, but it's not a tiny little one-horse town either. The main intersection with 59 has a decent bit of commercial development. Let's see what happens under your pure-toll system. Because of the interchange there, I locate a convenience store there. Now since I live in Trenton, I never once drive on I-59. Because of the people paying your toll, I now have a steady stream of customers. They get off the road, spend money at my business, then get back on the road. So I make loads of profit, but have to pass on none of that to help maintain the road because I don't drive on it. How is that fair? I benefit from it, but pay nothing into it. Under the current system, I pay into that road as part of taxes. Some of that is from the people on the road that stopped at my business, other from the people in the town, but most of it likely comes from people on the roadway. "BUT WAIT! If people from the town are serving your business, then it's not people using the road!" Maybe not directly, but I'm not the only business that the road attracted. Lots of other are in town that wouldn't be there without the highway at all. So it causes the town to grow, and prosper, and even if people don't drive on the highway, they still benefit from it.
This conservative/libertarian way of economic thinking is so tightly focused on the individual, that it neglects the community effect on the individual. You and jsvh want to fund everything solely with "user fees" but you never take it beyond the individual and their interaction with the system. You neglect the system's impact on the individual. You see "user fees" and "individuals only pay for what they use" but forget that people "use" a lot more of a community's resources than they touch. Imposing a pure-user fee system would cause individuals to cease their movement. They would buy big at the grocery store, yes, but that's because they're going to eat-in virtually every meal. They'll buy quality products sure, but only because they won't make the trips out to buy new products and will just be satisfied with the old. Now what happens when people stop buying things? Businesses close. They can't make enough money to stay in business, particularly since transportation costs have skyrocketed. So that means that factories close, and the workforce becomes unemployed. High unemployment breeds crime, sorry to say it, but it does. People get desperate to get enough money to eat, or to have clothes, so they steal things, rob people etc. The police force has to downsize because there's less taxes (unless we've user feed the police department too or something) so crime goes up even further. Now who wants to live in a high-crime area? If we want to go further, people move out, homes sit vacant, and crime still goes up. So this all comes back to being a big negative for the individual.
It is in the government's best interest to ensure movement of people and goods. Sorry, but it is. That means making everyone pay, to everyone's benefit. Even a tiny piece of road, smaller than I-59 cutting across the state, likely has value as part of the regional economic activities, which goes back to the macro view, only this time, it's the state that is the individual within the system of states that is this country.
The whole "only people who use roads should pay for them" is a ridiculous argument unless you want to just eliminate all taxes except sales tax. That way, only people who use things pay for them.
When examined closely, the "only people who use roads should pay for them" is actually not a ridiculous argument because about 95% of the commuting public uses roads at some point.
With about 95% of the commuting public using the road network (most transit users also use the road network at some point but choose to minimize their use of the road network by using transit as much as is possible or feasible), that means that virtually everyone uses roads, meaning that just about the entire public would be paying for roads in a system where only people who used roads paid for them as there are very-few people who don't use the road network at some point.
Besides, collecting user fees from motorists (most notably motorists on controlled-access major highways where user fee-collection is most-feasible) should not be about ideology, but should about collecting the proper amount of revenue that is actually to adequately and properly fund the maintenance of the road network without creating huge amounts of excessive public debt through excessive borrowing to make up the difference in the amount not collected to properly fund the road network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLTJL
But even that is silly because guess who uses interstates more than anybody? That's right....trucks. And if tolls are put on roads, guess who also has to pay them? Right again, trucks! Then, guess who flips the bill for the increased transportation costs? People who buy goods that are transported. You got it again...EVERYBODY.
So it really doesn't matter, if they put tolls on roads, it's just going to result in high prices for everything for everybody because who benefits from having quality roadways? We all do.
Those are excellent points....Which is why truckers should be refunded at least part of the amount of motor fuel taxes they pay if tolls are placed on controlled-access highways (Interstates, etc) so that consumer costs can be held in check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLTJL
To keep things fair, though, I think maybe what we ought to do is just eliminate the MARTA tax and let the people who ride it pay for it through increased fares. Why should others have to pay for it?
That's not a bad idea. There is actually a way to better fund high-capacity transit service with the scenario that you describe that might actually be much better than with the revenues from the current 1% sales tax on retail transactions in Fulton and DeKalb counties and the current non inflation-indexed flat-rate fare structure of $2.50 one-way.
That way is to eliminate the current countywide 1% sales tax in Fulton and DeKalb counties as you recommended and replace it with revenues from:
> Value Capture taxes like TADs (Tax Allocation Districts) and self-taxing CIDs (Community Improvement Districts) targeted to collect sales and property tax revenues only from commercial and industrial property in corridors around transit stations and along the highest-capacity transit lines....Value Capture taxes may be better than the 1% MARTA sales tax because Value Capture taxes (TADs and self-taxing CIDs) can collect revenues from both sales and property taxes instead of just sales taxes....Value Capture taxes also don't need the approval of voters in traditionally tax increase and transit-averse counties like Cobb and Gwinnett to be implemented since they are only targeted at selected commercial and industrial corridors...
> A inflation-indexed distance-based fare structure of roughly $0.20-per-mile in 2014 dollars (up to $0.30 per-mile for express and premium service and as low as $0.10 per-mile for discounts for special groups)...this is better than the current flat-rate fare structure of $2.50 one-way because in an inflation-indexed distance-based fare structure, fares would automatically rise with inflation so that most operating and maintenance costs are always covered by farebox revenues...also, a distance-based fare structure encourages shorter-distance trips (one would have to ride about 12.5 miles before paying the current flat-rate one-way fare of $2.50) while collecting enough revenue to adequately fund longer-distance transit service...
> Large-scale high-density upscale mixed-use transit-oriented development at and around transit stations and along transit lines...this is a revenue stream that, when fully-utilized, has the potential to bring in tens-of-billions in revenue to a traditionally cash-strapped transit agency like MARTA, enabling the agency to offer a much greater amount and much higher-level of train and bus service...
> High-level individual and corporate sponsorships aggressively-marketed to affluent private citizens and highly-successful large corporations (as opposed to simple advertising sales).
How are tolls fair? Let me give you this scenario (this about the 5th time I've used it, so I've gotten good at it). Let's take I-59 in NW Georgia. With its 20 little miles. It still passes the town of Trenton which is a decent town. It's not a huge town, but it's not a tiny little one-horse town either. The main intersection with 59 has a decent bit of commercial development. Let's see what happens under your pure-toll system. Because of the interchange there, I locate a convenience store there. Now since I live in Trenton, I never once drive on I-59. Because of the people paying your toll, I now have a steady stream of customers. They get off the road, spend money at my business, then get back on the road. So I make loads of profit, but have to pass on none of that to help maintain the road because I don't drive on it. How is that fair? I benefit from it, but pay nothing into it. Under the current system, I pay into that road as part of taxes. Some of that is from the people on the road that stopped at my business, other from the people in the town, but most of it likely comes from people on the roadway. "BUT WAIT! If people from the town are serving your business, then it's not people using the road!" Maybe not directly, but I'm not the only business that the road attracted. Lots of other are in town that wouldn't be there without the highway at all. So it causes the town to grow, and prosper, and even if people don't drive on the highway, they still benefit from it.
The tolls are fair because they allow the road to continue to exist....That's important because without the road the businesses that you speak of likely do not exist at all.
Also, like I stated before, not all interstate traffic using that 20-mile stretch of I-59 in extreme Northwest Georgia stops to buy fuel and retail items off the exit along the Georgia portion of the road. Most interstate traffic passes through on and uses that stretch of I-59 without contributing to Georgia's motor fuel taxes, just like they do on I-95 in Coastal Georgia and just like they often may on I-85 through the Piedmont.
That means that in our current inadequate motor fuel tax-funded system, the burden of paying the motor fuel taxes to fund the road falls mainly on Georgia citizens who may rarely use that isolated stretch of I-59 and need their other non-Interstate roads to be funded as well.
How is it fair that so many out-of-state drivers don't have to pay to maintain the roads that they contribute heavily to wearing-out and damaging by not having to pay Georgia motor fuel taxes?
Why should in-state drivers pay most of their tax money to maintain and repair Interstate superhighways that often non-paying out-of-state drivers play a major role in damaging at the expense of their own local roads?
...Local roads which are also often in desperate need of repairs that often don't get adequately addressed because most of the money goes to the Interstate system that often non-paying out-of-state drivers tear up.
Tolls on Interstates are fair because it makes out-of-state drivers pay their "fair-share" to maintain and repair the roads that they tear up when they pass through Georgia on roads like I-59, I-85 and I-95 and don't have to stop to pay state motor fuel taxes.
Just like along the I-95 through Fall Line Virginia and North Carolina, most of the damage being done to the road and most of the need for repairs is being done by out-of-state drivers who don't always stop and pay motor fuel taxes to pay for the repairs that they cause.
And it's not a "pure-toll" system. Tolls would only be electronically collected on controlled-access highways (NO toll booths) while the state motor fuel tax would still be in place to fund maintain and long-delayed repairs on the state's surface road network.
Enabling superhighways to become self-funded with electronic tolls allows the state to spend more money on the surface road network which is in desperate need of repairs and replacement in many spots, particularly on just about all bridges of all sizes throughout the entire state.
Remember I-35W in Minneapolis, the bridge that fell down and killed dozens of people back in 2007? That's what happens when we go year-after-year-after-year without collecting enough revenue to adequately fund the maintenance and upkeep of our transportation infrastructure...people start getting killed because long-overdue repairs and replacements were never made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW
This conservative/libertarian way of economic thinking is so tightly focused on the individual, that it neglects the community effect on the individual. You and jsvh want to fund everything solely with "user fees" but you never take it beyond the individual and their interaction with the system. You neglect the system's impact on the individual. You see "user fees" and "individuals only pay for what they use" but forget that people "use" a lot more of a community's resources than they touch. Imposing a pure-user fee system would cause individuals to cease their movement. They would buy big at the grocery store, yes, but that's because they're going to eat-in virtually every meal. They'll buy quality products sure, but only because they won't make the trips out to buy new products and will just be satisfied with the old. Now what happens when people stop buying things? Businesses close. They can't make enough money to stay in business, particularly since transportation costs have skyrocketed. So that means that factories close, and the workforce becomes unemployed. High unemployment breeds crime, sorry to say it, but it does. People get desperate to get enough money to eat, or to have clothes, so they steal things, rob people etc. The police force has to downsize because there's less taxes (unless we've user feed the police department too or something) so crime goes up even further. Now who wants to live in a high-crime area? If we want to go further, people move out, homes sit vacant, and crime still goes up. So this all comes back to being a big negative for the individual.
Implementing tolls on superhighways will not cause individuals to cease their movement because tolls would be collected electronically and motorists would receive cash refunds at least once each year (or maybe even on a quarterly or monthly basis) of part of the tolls they pay.
Implementing cash-back electronic tolls on a road just allows the road to collect enough money to much better maintain itself so that people and goods can move much more effectively through rebuilt interchanges on well-maintained superhighways complimented adequately with a high-level passenger rail transit and freight rail alternative.
Implementing distance-based fares backed with real estate revenues and high-level sponsorships on transit lines just allows transit to collect enough money to operate and maintain itself at a high-level of service instead of always teetering on the brink of financial collapse and insolvency while having to beg other broke and incompetent people for money (as has been the case with MARTA throughout its cash-starved existence).
Much better that a road and/or transit line be able to pay for itself while providing a critically-important service to the community than for a road and/or transit line to badly hurt the community by ceasing to exist because it did not have the money to stay operational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW
It is in the government's best interest to ensure movement of people and goods. Sorry, but it is. That means making everyone pay, to everyone's benefit. Even a tiny piece of road, smaller than I-59 cutting across the state, likely has value as part of the regional economic activities, which goes back to the macro view, only this time, it's the state that is the individual within the system of states that is this country.
I completely agree with this statement.
And under an inflation-indexed direct user fee-funded system, everyone will still pay, it's just that the way that they pay will be much more effective at funding the critical needs of our transportation infrastructure.
This is not an ideological battle between taxes and user fees. This is about collecting enough to fund the critical multimodal needs of our transportation infrastructure so our economy and our way-of-life does not collapse into third-world conditions.
Everyone will still pay because EVERYONE will still continue to use the transportation infrastructure (...out-of-state drivers, in-state drivers, superhighway users, surface road users, motorists, transit users, etc), it's just that we will be collecting a much more adequate amount of revenues so that we can have the transportation infrastructure that we so critically need to continue to function as a society.
I think this is a good ideal if 1) some of the money actually went to public transportation
There's actually a way that could happen in a transportation-funding concept being kicked around called "supercorridors" where, for example, Interstate 75 would bundled together with:
> An improved I-575 roadway...
> Future high-capacity passenger rail transit service along Canton Road and the GNRR (Georgia Northeastern Railroad) right-of-way...
> A future high-capacity transit corridor and super-arterial roadway along US 41 Cobb Parkway...
> Future high-capacity passenger rail transit service along the W&A (Western & Atlantic Railroad) ROW...
...And sold as a multimodal transportation package (a "supercorridor") to private real estate investors who would fund all design, construction, operating, maintenance, improvement, upgrade and expansion costs of the multimodal transportation infrastructure (roads and transit) in exchange for getting to keep all revenues from Value Capture taxes, distance-based user fees (fares on transit, tolls on roads), real estate development profits and high-level transit sponsorships.
The roads and transit lines would be packaged together into a multimodal transportation corridor so that the roads and transit lines would be working with each other instead of competing against each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfarley30
and 2) the tolls are place strategically to make those in single occupant cars think about using other methods. For example a toll on I-75 south right before I-285 near Cumberland.
They wouldn't be using strategically-placed toll booths.
They'll be using boothless electronically-collected distance-based dynamic tolling where the tolls rise from as low as $0.04/mile during off-peak hours to as much as $1.00/mile in selected lanes (managed lanes) during peak hours depending on the level of traffic on the roadway.
The tolls will not just be collected from selected places, but will apply to along the entire stretch of Interstate roadway both ITP and OTP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
