Judge orders halt to Rhode Island truck tolls, rules system is unconstitutional (2015, big house)

[aggravatedassaulted]

Now things are going to get interesting.

- Will cars be tolled in the near future? The current law says that the voters must decide id cars will be tolled, but my guess is the GA will simply remove that language in the next budget bill, which, historically, the governor has always signed into law without much fight.
- Will the state push it to SCOTUS?
- Will the state simply pull down the tolls?
- What about the bonds the tolls are tied too? How will they be paid?


https://www.providencejournal.com/st...rs/8072195001/

A federal judge has ruled Rhode Island's truck toll system unconstitutional and ordered the state to stop charging tractor trailers within 48 hours.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith sides with the trucking industry, which has fought against truck tolls in court since 2018. The political fight over the tolls began when Gina Raimondo became governor in 2015.

"Because RhodeWorks fails to fairly apportion its tolls among bridge users based on a fair approximation of their use of the bridges, was enacted with a discriminatory purpose, and is discriminatory in effect, the statute’s tolling regime is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution," Smith wrote in the ruling.

[Hollytree]

I think this is a bad decision, but then again, it was pushed by the trucking industry which does not acknowledge that their enormous vehicles cause more damage to highways and bridges than do cars. The use of the bridges statement:
"RhodeWorks fails to fairly apportion its tolls among bridge users based on a fair approximation of their use of the bridges" fails to acknowledge that. Likely, RI will appeal.

[PureBoston]

It's likely that that Rhode Island will lose an appeal should they file one. Most thinking and reasoning people understand that trucks pay far more in toll fees than cars because they cause far more road wear. Cars pay less because they cause less wear. It's fair and it's the way normal states structure it. The only way Rhode Island's system could be considered fair is if it's determined that cars cause no wear whatsoever to roads. None. Zero. Pretty simple stuff. For every other state. And likely for any judge.

[PureBoston]

Most likely the GA will simply modify the statute that prohibits the tolling of cars without consent. Should take about 20 minutes. Then you folks gotta decide what you want, tolls for all or tolls for nobody. There's no right or wrong answer.

[PureBoston]

Originally Posted by aggravatedassaulted

Now things are going to get interesting.

- Will cars be tolled in the near future? The current law says that the voters must decide id cars will be tolled, but my guess is the GA will simply remove that language in the next budget bill, which, historically, the governor has always signed into law without much fight.
- Will the state push it to SCOTUS?
- Will the state simply pull down the tolls?
- What about the bonds the tolls are tied too? How will they be paid?


https://www.providencejournal.com/st...rs/8072195001/

I think it's a just ruling. "Gina" knew it was shaky ground to begin with. Just as she knew that she wouldn't be around if and when it unraveled. It was amazing that we never saw her lips move when her words came out of Peter "listen, pal" Alviti. There's always the carnival when Trump sends her packing. Or bank teller?

[PureBoston]

Originally Posted by Hollytree

I think this is a bad decision, but then again, it was pushed by the trucking industry which does not acknowledge that their enormous vehicles cause more damage to highways and bridges than do cars. The use of the bridges statement:
"RhodeWorks fails to fairly apportion its tolls among bridge users based on a fair approximation of their use of the bridges" fails to acknowledge that. Likely, RI will appeal.

You've completely misinterpreted the ATA statement. Completely. You've completely missed their entire argument, which happens to make perfect sense. Completely. Fortunately a judge who can think and reason heard the case instead of you.

[independent man]

Originally Posted by PureBoston

There's always the carnival when Trump sends her packing.

Sends her packing? The only packing carnival I see in his future is perhaps packing a toothbrush, bronzer & hair products for the trip to the big house. Hopefully, Ivanka will still be around to do that.

[PureBoston]

Originally Posted by independent man

Sends her packing? The only packing carnival I see in his future is perhaps packing a toothbrush, bronzer & hair products for the trip to the big house. Hopefully, Ivanka will still be around to do that.

It's certainly a possibility.

[ormari]

I think the big legal problem for the state isn't so much that they taxed just trucks to the exclusion of cars, but that they tried to rig the truck tolling system to protect local trucking interests, such as construction vehicles, yet still tax out of state trucking interests. That seems to be a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.

[Hollytree]

Originally Posted by PureBoston

You've completely misinterpreted the ATA statement. Completely. You've completely missed their entire argument, which happens to make perfect sense. Completely. Fortunately a judge who can think and reason heard the case instead of you.

NO I have not. What I wrote was quite clear- except to you.

On another note, McKee has said that cars will not be tolled.