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.
Point taken, but those statistics do include local roads, which admittedly are funded much less by gas taxes and much more by the general fund.
I would gladly support an increase in both federal and state gas taxes. The beneficial effects could be multi-pronged: better funding for our crumbling road network, perhaps some funding for transit, and maybe a conscious decision on the part of Americans to move towards vehicles with better fuel consumption and carbon footprints. This would also get around the restrictions on tolling existing interstate lanes, which I think we can all agree are unlikely to go anywhere anytime soon. The political will for that is simply not there.
Point taken, but those statistics do include local roads, which admittedly are funded much less by gas taxes and much more by the general fund.
I would gladly support an increase in both federal and state gas taxes. The beneficial effects could be multi-pronged: better funding for our crumbling road network, perhaps some funding for transit, and maybe a conscious decision on the part of Americans to move towards vehicles with better fuel consumption and carbon footprints. This would also get around the restrictions on tolling existing interstate lanes, which I think we can all agree are unlikely to go anywhere anytime soon. The political will for that is simply not there.
Well, the political will is not there for raising the gas tax either.
Even if it was, at the rate electric vehicle adoption is expecting to take off in the next decade or two, a gas tax will not be a sustainable solution.
And if you want to help your carbon footprint even more get out of your car altogether. If we are going to incentive people, why not towards transit / walking / biking?
Well, the political will is not there for raising the gas tax either.
Even if it was, at the rate electric vehicle adoption is expecting to take off in the next decade or two, a gas tax will not be a sustainable solution.
And if you want to help your carbon footprint even more get out of your car altogether. If we are going to incentive people, why not towards transit / walking / biking?
Agree that when electric vehicles really become prevalent, we'll need another solution. Perhaps some combination of our current VAT on car purchases and out of state title transfers plus some sort of annual tax on miles driven, provided that adequate protections against odometer tampering exist. I would support both of those, particularly if the latter involved a mandatory annual vehicle safety inspection as part of the mileage check. I remember those from my childhood and it seems crazy that they're no longer common.
As to the second point, I agree that those solutions should be explored and encouraged, but there's no way they're going to work for everyone. For many people, particularly in two-income households, they're simply not feasible.
It should not be don't as a punitive thing, but it should be done.
Most of CoA's roads are getting paid with property taxes. They should add some form of tolls to use roads in the city so it more directly ties to usage and stop incentivizing people from living outside the city and free loading on our car infrastructure. Meanwhile people such as myself are paying most of the cost of the roads even though I don't have a car. *SNIP*
That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. Going to an all-toll system as you propose is the easiest way to create free loaders, that is people who pay nothing, yet receive benefit. We've been through this. The business owner that plops his business down next to the highway, helps to pay for the highway that brings his customers in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
Are you sure about that? Because places and times when transit competes on a level playing field fares are similar or lower to what we pay now.
When Atlanta had dozens of private streetcar lines crisscrossing the city you could get anywhere for an inflation-adjusted equivalent of $1.50.
Even today, the cost to per rider on MARTA rail is about $3: MARTA
And this is the part where you conveniently ignore that those "private streetcar lines" owned all the land around the lines, not just a few parking-lot sized TODs, but EVERYTHING on both sides of the lines thus subsidizing the passenger service. Or they used the passenger service as a means to legally sell power to the buildings along those lines also subsidizing the passenger service. These are conditions which no longer exist in the modern age!
Sounds great in theory, but the transit, by and large, is not here yet. So what's the plan? Throw up these barriers and tolls with no actual transit solution in place, so everyone suffers unnecessarily for the 20+ years it will take to build the transit necessary to create a real choice between paying the congestion toll and taking said transit?
Well, treat it like a tax measure to improve any service, right?
You start by saying you're going to do it. Then, since you have said that, you have an expected amount of revenue against which to levy bonds to actually build the system. Using the exact same expected revenue, further bonds could be issued to pay for the first round of improvements.
Start simple, and hit some low-hanging fruit. Quadrupling GRTA's service area and building out GRTA transit centers would be a good start. Maybe pay for some BRT routes ITP. Finally build the MMPT, and strike a deal with both CSX and NS for a 10-year (or so) track-rights lease to run limited commuter rail in exchange for substantial funding to rebuild Howell and the Gulch Wyes. Convince towns to pay for their own slap-dash stations to serve until the real-world revenue is settled a bit more solidly to pay for proper, full commuter-rail stations.
That, all together, represents about 27% of the expected revenue, and is a good conservative base-line issuance of bonds against expected revenue IMO. Especially if we get federal matching to cut it in half.
We should be timing things in parallel, engineering documents for both the toll system and transit improvements happening at the same time. Then, in the few years it would take to actually install and test the pricing system, we would also be building out the first round of improvements.
By the time the tolls open, GRTA should be ready, more last-mile transit ITP should be up to ART levels, if not true BRT, while the first tastes of commuter rail are set in as well with the MMPT's first phase done.
The first few days, if not weeks, will be utter chaos. That was a consistent thread between all the cities. I liked Singapore's campaign when they set up their system, though. Pamphlets were sent to all motorists explaining how the system worked, locations for in-car pay unit installation, and containing a voucher for the free installation of one. When motorists had their unit installed, they were provided with another booklet detailing its operation and troubleshooting the units. There were frequent public information pieces in all media detailing when, where, and how charges would happen. Finally, there was a one-month period of test driving where the system was full operated, but the fees were set to zero, allowing motorists to grow accustomed to the motions of the system.
I would highly recommend something similar to cut down as much as possible on confusion, though I wouldn't want us using the in-car units. Rather, we should use London's camera-rig system, pretty much exactly like what SRTA uses today for the HOT lanes.
Stockholm's system was approved by referendum with a narrow margin of 3%, and initial support of the final system was very low. After a little while of the tolls being in effect, and with lasting traffic reductions of 20%, public opinions rose to 65%-70% favorable of the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2
Well you could charge people who use transit the actual cost of their transit, but prices would quadruple.
You could, but roads and private car use have so many negative externalities that it doesn't really make any sense to price it like you suggest. I mean, if we're charging people the full, actual cost of the systems, then okay. Transit will win out anyway.
Just don't go seriously expecting transit to compete against roads when so many of the costs associated with them are hidden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by evannole
Yup, we already do pay for them, through state and federal gas taxes.
Would you approve of user fees on the Beltline, too?
I mean, isn't that what the TAD kind of is? It's not a direct user fee, but it is charging those who are more likely to make regular use of the BeltLine more money to live near it. That and the transit components will have use fees in the form of fares.
Besides, the BeltLine is orders of magnitude less expensive to maintain than roads moving the equivalent number of people, and actually supports fiscally sustainable developments. It makes sense to incentivize its use over much more socially expensive modes like personal vehicles.
I am well aware of the current laws. You're assuming it stays illegal, though, which, given the state of infrastructure decay and fiscal unsustainability in this country, isn't a set deal.
Also, trucks would be allowed to bypass on, well, I-285. Just like they're already required to do.
I never said they wouldn't be allowed to, I said it would be extraordinarily unfair to toll them when I-285 is LITERALLY the only way they can go to by-pass Atlanta and to travel to and from Florida. If there were other North - South Interstates in place that by-passed the metro area and generally for the purpose of trucks servicing Florida and the enter Mid-West then this seems more viable but without that.. it will become an absolute political nightmare. They already hate coming through Atlanta as is and the only reason they do is because its the only way they can come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
Dynamic tolling would maintain a certain level of entrance, just as they do in HOT lanes. Prices would be set to ensure that there was still plenty of activity into the city. That point may very well be well below my stated average toll, but it's entirely incorrect to say it would be suicide.
So let me make sure I understand this, under a dynamic toll system, I'm driving from Buford and I get to I-285 and see the entry fee into the belt of Atlanta is going to be $20... ...Now am I going to turn around and cancel my trip? ... or ... I'm going to drive to Doraville (which literally had no available parking when I-85 collapsed) and pray that I can get a space? .. Probably not. I'm probably going to continue driving. I don't think it's going to turn out as well as you think... I believe what will really happen is employers will see this as an issue and offer certain employees a voucher or a pay increase to overcome the toll, thus completely negating any influence on the traffic and only funding the city with more taxed revenue from the companies within.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
This is incorrect. GDOT 'owns' the interstates and federal roads within the state. The state pays lots of money to maintain them beyond what the feds pitch in.
I did mess that up slightly. What I meant by the word locally was "privately" and by this is because the Federal Government wants these roads built to certain standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
As are the privately and for-profit freight rail networks. Nothing about tolling, especially if done so by the state via SRTA or a similar agency, would change that.
Those are secondary, auxiliary, the federal government requires Interstates to be built to certain standards before they can be co-signed as Interstates. Toll-roads are privately maintained, the military can use these networks if they want, yes..but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be up to standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
This still assumes that the laws stay as they are in perpetuity, which I don't buy.
Go drive in Chicago or New York if you want an example... Most of their limited access highways are heavily tolled and poorly maintained. You might quickly change your mind into believing this is a good idea.. as it stands it costs approximately $25 to drive through Chicago using the toll roads (this includes Indiana) - amplify that for truck drivers commuting long distances.. those companies will NOT stand for it..simply put. Miami and Houston do a better job I won't lie on that, but handing off an entire interstate system to private banks or state tolling will not go as well as you might think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
No, it would not. Even if the roads didn't remain property of the state, which is not at all what I'm suggesting, they would still be subject to the rules inherit to Martial Law and States of Emergency. That is, they are 100% still usable in times of national need, just like the privately owned railroads are.
Sooo I'm looking here at Google Maps and I see I-75 comes directly through Atlanta.. from Tennessee, to Florida.. and I'm thinking of your plan..where presumably... I-75 will literally END at I-285's north end...and resume again at I-285's south end..dividing the actual interstate, regardless if the military can use the toll road is irrelevant, it puts a gap in the interstate system and completely defies the act / system... they would HAVE to complete the system by building a free alternative around the entire city of Atlanta before they can toll the existing alignment. There's no way around that. The toll road assumes a private organization and no longer has to meet interstate standards .. yes they can ASSUME it - but it is no longer apart of the national defense system - only auxiliary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
You're still assuming the laws remain the same as they are today. I'm actually suggesting that SRTA be the agency that operate the tolls, just as they do the HOT lanes.
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
Well, it's a good thing tolls come with their own way to fund alternatives built in.
What are you implying? Generally, on tolled highways it is not legal to use the revenue from tolls on anything else but to maintain or improve the alotted tolled facility - in SRTA's case the toll lanes.. but they will have a difficult time pushing the toll revenue to increase MARTA feasibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
I'm not saying that we are like London or Paris, but that, even for our differences, the principles are the same. The rules of economics don't change. The tech doesn't change. We can easily compensate for any different scenarios, but ultimately the effects will trend the same way.
I cannot logically see how you are assuming the principals are the same between a transit orientated city where the government fully assumes full control of the entire rail network (in London and Paris) and likewise has for centuries invested in transit and commuting masses of people through densely populated areas and hubs to a city that is FAR less dense in comparison and has grown under the American culture to be a car-dependent society where transit options such as imposed in Paris and London simply put do not exist as they do here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
Well, treat it like a tax measure to improve any service, right?
You start by saying you're going to do it. Then, since you have said that, you have an expected amount of revenue against which to levy bonds to actually build the system. Using the exact same expected revenue, further bonds could be issued to pay for the first round of improvements.
Start simple, and hit some low-hanging fruit. Quadrupling GRTA's service area and building out GRTA transit centers would be a good start. Maybe pay for some BRT routes ITP. Finally build the MMPT, and strike a deal with both CSX and NS for a 10-year (or so) track-rights lease to run limited commuter rail in exchange for substantial funding to rebuild Howell and the Gulch Wyes. Convince towns to pay for their own slap-dash stations to serve until the real-world revenue is settled a bit more solidly to pay for proper, full commuter-rail stations.
Taxing will solve almost nothing because the issue isn't a funding issue to begin with. DOT has had several opportunities to step in and boost MARTA, expand rail lines, ect ect.. but the issue is..the public does not want it...and now that the metro has exploded in development it will cost exponentially more to expand those service lines.
GRTA already has a fairly sufficient amount of coverage, the issue is it doesn't meet the needs of the commuters in the hours and times the actual buses run nor does it solve the last mile issues and finally the reason it isn't being heavily focused upon is because most commuters do not want to use it.
Lastly, you cannot use tolls from Highways to improve mass transit service, this is illegal... the tolls can only be used to improved on the tolled network or the highway system in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
That, all together, represents about 27% of the expected revenue, and is a good conservative base-line issuance of bonds against expected revenue IMO. Especially if we get federal matching to cut it in half.
So...the federal government is supposed to drop the entire interstate system and pick up the railroad right?...we'll see how that turns out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
We should be timing things in parallel, engineering documents for both the toll system and transit improvements happening at the same time. Then, in the few years it would take to actually install and test the pricing system, we would also be building out the first round of improvements.
By the time the tolls open, GRTA should be ready, more last-mile transit ITP should be up to ART levels, if not true BRT, while the first tastes of commuter rail are set in as well with the MMPT's first phase done.
The first few days, if not weeks, will be utter chaos. That was a consistent thread between all the cities. I liked Singapore's campaign when they set up their system, though. Pamphlets were sent to all motorists explaining how the system worked, locations for in-car pay unit installation, and containing a voucher for the free installation of one. When motorists had their unit installed, they were provided with another booklet detailing its operation and troubleshooting the units. There were frequent public information pieces in all media detailing when, where, and how charges would happen. Finally, there was a one-month period of test driving where the system was full operated, but the fees were set to zero, allowing motorists to grow accustomed to the motions of the system.
First few DECADES...as it will take about that long before we see any improvement on the mass transit network as a whole.. it's been in completely outdated (in terms of coverage) for the last 30 years... magically it's supposed to pick up in a month or two?...
Taxing us with tolls will do absolutely nothing to mass transit, look at I-85's toll lanes.. They are packed with tolls up to $13 and people are still paying them and at times the lane drops below efficiency (45 MPH) and people are still choosing them over taking a park and ride commuter bus.
I'm not going to nic-pic through the rest of this...
you're comparing apples and oranges. Paris and London have MUCH stronger influence over the transit network and the rail network as a whole because they were built as rail dependent cities and the governments actually own the railroads thus they have much more flexibility over them, unlike the U.S. where our rails are privately owned. Both of these cities were never ever as car dependent cities as we in America are so it is easy to see why Stockholm would be satisfied over the improvement... The same strategy simply put will not work anywhere near as cleanly here as it does there.
Well, this is not at all what I proposed. A 25% reduction in inbound traffic is hardly 'locking everyone inside'. Especially when the revenue from that reduction in traffic is used to vastly increase transit service within the whole of the metro.
Boy, it's a good thing tolls come with a mechanism to fund transit, then. Like, say, a whole list of projects that were already mentioned that include tons of ITP and OTP projects?
Also, who said we'd be trying to accommodate some 4-5 million people ITP? The current 2050 projections for CoA are only 1.3 Million, so, for the rest of ITP, call it 1.5 Million.
Well, if you take ALL of that 25% reduction in traffic and assume that each daily entrance is a whole person who would suddenly choose to live ITP, which is ridiculous but whatever, then we're only talking about a total population of 3.2 Million people. Maybe. Over the 250 square miles within the perimeter, that's an average of 12,800 ppsm, which is only slightly more dense than Santa Ana.
Then again, it's absurd to think that that's even what would happen, especially given the extent of transit that could be funded with the revenue.
The problem is transit actually needs to be there before you tax people for driving. Doing it in reverse is literally backwards from how these Europeans cities are doing it.
If you started charging people $20 a day/400 a month to go to work with no alternatives, yeah they are going to want to live where they don't have to pay that. How may years do you think it would take to get the infrastructure in place for all those people who can't afford an extra $400 a month to go to work?
Yep. You do not need transit in place in order to have drivers directly pay for the roads they are using.
Stop acting like tolling roads suddenly requires everyone to have an easy and direct way to get everywhere in the metro via transit.
In some libertarian dream land where we live by strict social Darwinist culture, you are correct. Middle Class and below but can't afford the extra $400 bucks a month to drive to work because you had the audacity to live somewhere you could afford and the state/metro didn't give you another option to get to your job?
Tough luck. That will teach you to suburb!
Last edited by bhammaster; 10-26-2017 at 09:52 AM..
because you had the audacity to live somewhere you could afford
You counting existing transportation costs in that figure?
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.
