To clarify just a bit: State CAN toll on interstates for new lane miles. What? Yes, but only for those lanes. Here's what that looks like.
Say you have a very congested roadway segment, maybe in an urban area, where everyone is trying to get downtown at the same time. Typical situation in cities across the U.S. If the state DOT wants to add a couple of lanes in each direction, they can put tolls on those lanes. the rest of the lanes stay free. Essentially, people are paying to drive faster by using the toll lanes. anyone who wants to not pay can be stuck in the same traffic as before. Sometimes DOTs put what are known as dynamic tolls on the lanes. You are guarantees to always be able to go a minimum speed, maybe 50 MPH, regardless of the time of day or amount of traffic in the other lanes. They do this by adjusting the tolls by time of day and even day of the week. They keep raising the tolls until there are only the number of people that the lanes can handle at the minimum speed. This is also how state DOTs can pay for new lanes. Sometimes they even partner with a private firm who will build the additional lanes and collect the tolls to get their money back. Now there are two problems in Wisconsin. 1. State law doesn't allow tolls, so that would have to be changed. 2. There are no roadways that are so crowded that tolling only certain lanes would be worthwhile. The truth is that traffic just isn't that bad anywhere in Wisconsin on a regular basis. There aren't enough people that are willing to pay extra to go faster. At least not enough to pay for those extra lanes. That's why it's so stupid to try to add extra lanes to I-90 south to Illinois or I-94 into Milwaukee. On the other hand, the only thing keeping WisDOT from tolling the Beltline or other state routes is the state law. Now that would be pretty interesting: tolls on the Beltline. One reason it's so bad is that there are very few alternatives. Robbie Webber Transportation Policy Analyst 608-263-9984 (o) 608-225-0002 (c) [email protected] All opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or any other group with which I am affiliated. On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:46 PM, William Hauda <[email protected]> wrote: > Under the agreements Wisconsin entered into to build its Interstate > highway system with federal financial assistance, tolls were excluded. The > reason you see tolls charged in states like Illinois is that those roads > existed prior to the I-system and were thus grandfathered. Would take an > act of Congress to change the situation. > > > On 3/5/2015 1:42 PM, Grant Foster wrote: > > A wheel tax is easy to implement and could bring in revenue to a > municipality or county quickly, but it seems to miss the mark a little by > taxing car ownership rather than roadway utilization (we own one car that > sits in the driveway 95% of the time and most of the miles it does see are > out of state). It would also be a bigger hardship to households with lower > income. > > What about a tollway system? I haven't heard talk of that for a while. Is > it a bad idea? Politically unfeasible? Seems like a way to help raise some > revenue from "freeloaders" from outside our state. > > And if anyone seriously proposes a bicycle wheel tax, I'm going to push > for a shoe tax to accompany it. I'm tired of all those freeloading > pedestrians not paying for their sidewalks... > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Larry D Nelson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> If there was a state registration and registration fees (and wheel tax) >> for bikes, our work would be much easier. We would have a common >> relationship with the motorists, who may currently regard bicyclists as >> freeloaders. >> >> Right now, all we can agree on is that we as individuals should not >> have to pay for anything. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Mar 5, 2015, at 1:22 AM, Jeffrey Schimpff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I would much rather pay a higher registration fee for a bike that I use >> every day of the year, rather than for a car that sits in the garage most >> of the time. A wheel tax is regressive for those of us who do our best to >> conserve energy and use public roadways very little (aside from local >> streets, for which we pay in large part with property taxes). >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"William Hauda" <[email protected]> >> *To: *"Eric Sundquist" <[email protected]>, "Larry Nelson" < >> [email protected]>, "Matthew Logan" <[email protected]> >> *Cc: *[email protected] >> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 3, 2015 11:12:25 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [Bikies] Iowa Raises Gas Tax >> >> The problem with a wheel tax is the same problem we face with the >> state transportation fund. It's a perception issue. There's no guarantee >> any of the $ from a wheel tax will go for bicycling. Given the negative >> view of the public and their elected officials of cycling as being a part >> of an integrated transportation system, it's just another tax to fund roads >> for cars. While better roads for cars may also accommodate us (*if >> complete streets is not repealed, which is a current issue in the >> legislature, and Bike Fed is working on trying to resolve that problem*) >> a wheel tax might finance new and re-pave existing streets and roads, but >> it is not going to specifically help bicycle transportation. That's where >> we need to go. We need to statutorily integrate bicycling into >> transportation funding because it is a part of transportation. >> >> On 3/3/2015 5:49 PM, Eric Sundquist wrote: >> >> I have heard discussion among County Board members about establishing a >> wheel tax and would favor it, based on that discussion and Larry's info. A >> $20 tax in Dane County would bring in between $4 million and $5 million -- >> not nearly what the RTA was looking at and small potatoes compared to big >> projects like Verona Road or Highway M, but definitely a part of the puzzle >> in growing the multimodal system in the county. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Larry Nelson <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> *To:* Matthew Logan <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 3, 2015 5:31 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Bikies] Iowa Raises Gas Tax >> >> Planning includes financing needed public transportation improvements. >> The following municipalities have adopted the wheel tax. >> >> Municipalities >> Appleton (city) - $20 beginning February 2015 >> Arena (township) - $20 beginning April 2015 >> Beloit (city) - $10 through January 2015; $20 beginning February 2015 >> Janesville (city) - $10 >> Milwaukee (city) - $20 >> Counties >> Chippewa County - $10 beginning January 2015 >> Iowa County - $20 beginning February 2015 >> St. Croix County - $10 >> >> I don't think that they did that because they wanted to but that they had >> to. I rather doubt that Iowa County and the Town of Arena in Iowa County >> adopted a wheel tax because they wanted to: rather, I suspect that they had >> to in order to fund their transportation responsibilities. >> >> The WIDOT collects the wheel tax for a small charge. >> >> And, I intend to lobby my township, the Town of Dodgeville, to do the >> same in order to maintain town roads. >> >> I argue that biking is a transportation mode. Upon reflection, I don't >> argue that: I assert that biking is a part of the transportation system as >> a proven fact. >> >> The wheel tax has to be spent on transportation. This is a tool already >> provided by the State. I suggest that you consider this when you next >> discuss transportation issues with your elected officials. Think and act >> locally. >> >> Larry D Nelson >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Matthew Logan" <[email protected]> >> To: "Larry D Nelson" <[email protected]>, "William Hauda" < >> [email protected]>, [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 9:21:32 AM >> Subject: RE: [Bikies] Iowa Raises Gas Tax >> >> The core problem since November 2010 is not a lack of funding or planning >> for transportation - The Governor and Legislature have had no problem >> making >> money show up for highway expansions (that primarily benefit people in the >> suburbs of Milwaukee), even when facing large deficits that are otherwise >> used to justify large cuts elsewhere in the budget. The problem is that >> the >> people making the decisions do not believe it is the role of the state to >> provide funding for bicycling, while at the same time, clinging to >> 1970's-era thinking about the value of highways. >> >> The Governor has stated that until all the roads are fixed, bicycle >> facilities will have to wait. Of course, by "fixed" he means, enough >> money >> lavished on them to send a signal to businesses (the few that directly >> benefit from highway spending) that they should consider relocating to >> Wisconsin. The Governor has also effectively said that the people of >> Wisconsin have chosen to drive, so that is where all the money should go - >> to infrastructure that directly benefits the payers of gas tax (which >> means >> motorists). The Governor and GOP have been promoting the meme that the >> transportation fund has been raided, and needs to be repaid. This, >> despite >> the fact that the LFB reported a net $314 million transfer from the >> General >> Fund to Transportation since the "raids" began in 2003. >> >> These beliefs displayed by the Governor and legislature are at odds with >> the >> reality of AADT trend lines looking more flat - a fact now acknowledged by >> AASHTO. >> >> The problem is not that we need a plan for a revenue stream - it is that >> our >> elected officials have no rational basis upon which we can argue the >> merits >> of increasing funding for bicycling infrastructure. They live in a world >> where economically productive highways have been cheated out of their due >> by >> special interest groups like teachers and bicyclists. They live in a >> world >> where fairness dictates repayment for this perceived wrong. Until that >> belief system changes, planning will have no effect. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bikies [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Larry D >> Nelson >> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 7:02 AM >> To: 'William Hauda'; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Bikies] Iowa Raises Gas Tax >> >> In my observations and study regarding the construction of public works >> from >> Rome to the present time (I apologize if that sounds pompous: it is my >> hobby), there are periods of time when funding and resources are just not >> made available to construct needed improvements. But, wise people plan >> for >> the future. For example, the interstate highway system planning took >> place >> decades before there was a President Eisenhower to implement the plan. >> Planning is relatively inexpensive. >> >> Bill, please plan and propose. >> >> For my part, I'd like to consider moving the responsibility for state bike >> routes from the WDNR to the WIDOT, and recognize that their construction >> and >> maintenance are transportation corridors/modes. >> >> Ok, I am off my soap box :>) >> >> >> Larry D. Nelson, P.E. >> >> PO Box 199 >> 4180 Wilson Road >> Dodgeville, WI 53533 >> >> 608 630 6532 <608%20630%206532> (C) >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bikies [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> William >> Hauda >> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 7:01 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Bikies] Iowa Raises Gas Tax >> >> Mike, Iowa also has in place a constitutional amendment that earmarks >> a >> portion of any future sales tax increase for things like trails. Problem >> is, >> there is no enthusiasm to increase the sales tax. >> I'm currently researching some policy that I think has hampered bicycling >> in >> Wisconsin and think I will have a recommendation for either the next >> meeting >> of the Non-motorized Recreation and Transportation Trails Council or the >> Bike Fed, where the Advocacy Committee we served together on developing >> things like Complete Streets is, I'm told by the powers that be, about to >> be >> reconstituted. Where I am going might not only be politically palatable >> to a >> conservative administration, for reasons other than bicycling, but set us >> up >> with a guaranteed source of funding. Where I am headed will involve a >> major >> paradigm shift. Got my fingers crossed. >> Bill >> >> On 2/25/2015 6:03 PM, Michael Rewey wrote: >> > With bi-partisan and governor's support Iowa just raised their gas tax >> > a whopping 10 cents per gallon. >> > >> > Too bad that could not happen here so we can get balanced >> > transportation instead of just building for cars and trucks with bond >> > dollars. But of course a governor who is running for national office >> doesn't dare raise any taxes. >> > >> > We'll have to pay more for trail passes and state park passes to name >> > a few, but those are "user fees". In reality gas tax is a user fee >> also. >> You only pay if you use it. Frustrating.... >> > >> > Mike Rewey >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Bikies mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing >> [email protected]http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing > [email protected]http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
