Gotta give props to the current administration for making what I believe is a proper decision.  :)

Seems the PA State government wanted to make Interstate 80, a major thru-state highway, a toll road, so that they could expropriate the money and spend it on mass transit and some infrastructure work.  However, tolling an Interstate requires Federal approval since Interstate Highways are mainly built using Federal money.

After three years of wrangling in both Bush and O'bama administrations, the tolling proposal has been rejected.  And there is no course for appeal, this decision is final.

PA legislators are now faced with the rather distasteful concepts of:


Making the mass transit crowd pay their own way  ::)
Increasing gasoline taxes, so that ALL motorists bear the costs of the required infrastructure spending


I think the O'bama admin was correct.  If PA wants to raise close to $900MM a year to support highway infrastructure and mass transit, then let the USERS of those facilities bear the cost; an increase in statewide highway gas tax would make more sense to me (to fund the highway portion).  Placing tolls on one highway, to basically expropriate money from out-of-state users of this highway, was a sneaky way to unfairly tax the users of I-80.

(Note: If they wanted to toll I-80 as a way to strictly fund needed improvements to I-80, I would not have objected).

I-80 is part of the Federal Highway System that was created by Eisenhower. The "purpose" of it was so that the military could move around the country fairly easily.

We have taken I-80 many, many times. That road goes on FOREVER!!!!



Cat

I'm for subsidizing mass transit, but via toll roads...but by raising YOUR property taxes.

Now will you vote for me?
???

The Massachusetts Turnpike opened in 1959.  It was supposed to be a toll road only until the state retired the original bonds, projected to be in about 1973.  The Mass Pike is still a toll road.  Incidentally, the Mass Pike is the easternmost portion of I-90. 

I mean, it still costs less to drive the entire length of the Mass Pike from  West Stockbridge to Logan Airport than it does to cross one bridge/tunnel in NYC, but it's still a toll road.  Toll roads don't just go away and there's no guarantee what the legislature is going to ultimately end up spending toll money on.  Interstate highways are in constant need of repair, so that was one of many excuses to keep the tolls going on the Mass Pike.
::)

If PA is having funding issues, why not sell the road and let a company charge tolls?  As long as there is some sort of stipulation that tolls can't go above a certain amount per car, that seems fair.

If PA is having funding issues, why not sell the road and let a company charge tolls?  As long as there is some sort of stipulation that tolls can't go above a certain amount per car, that seems fair.


The Federal government would never allow I-80 to be sold.  Or if they did, the Federal Government would be entitled to get 80% of the money since the highway was 80% federal funded.

There is talk of selling/leasing the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but when you think of it, it's a silly idea and truly "mortgaging the future".  The Turnpike is already a toll road and generates revenues that unfortunately are disbursed outside of the turnpike itself.  Selling/leasing the turnpike simply lets the government "cash in" up front, but then it loses out as the lease progresses.  Selling off a toll road simply gets you a quick infusion of cash now, at the expense of not getting nearly as much toll revenue profit in the subsequent years.

If PA is having funding issues, why not sell the road and let a company charge tolls?  As long as there is some sort of stipulation that tolls can't go above a certain amount per car, that seems fair.



that would be price controls, and therefore communist.

When are they, by "they" I mean any of them, going to take away the cushy business lunch deduction?  Am I the only one who goes nuts over that? ???

that would be price controls, and therefore communist.


Ask somebody who lives in Chicago what happens to parking meter rates when you sell a public asset to an investment firm.

The meter rates there have been raised to absolutely absurd levels. 

Ask somebody who lives in Chicago what happens to parking meter rates when you sell a public asset to an investment firm.

The meter rates there have been raised to absolutely absurd levels.  


Parking rates in my rinky-dink town (Amherst, Mass.) shot up about ten years ago as a temporary measure to compensate for a budget shortfall.  Did they return to previous levels after the budget crisis was resolved?  Nope.  And that's via town meeting.  A lot of cities have municipal parking administrated by private contractors and you can just smell the corruption coming off those lots!
::)


When are they, by "they" I mean any of them, going to take away the cushy business lunch deduction?  Am I the only one who goes nuts over that? ???


That's right.  You're not allowed to buy a bottle of hooch with food stamps, but you can write off a five-martini lunch!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/drunken_smilie.gif

Parking rates in my rinky-dink town (Amherst, Mass.) shot up about ten years ago as a temporary measure to compensate for a budget shortfall.  Did they return to previous levels after the budget crisis was resolved?  Nope.  And that's via town meeting.  A lot of cities have municipal parking administrated by private contractors and you can just smell the corruption coming off those lots!
::)



This may sound a bit twisted, but if a GOVERNMENT-OWNED parking authority wants to jack up parking rates to a ridiculously high level, I am somewhat OK with that.  Why?  Because the politicians in charge can at least be voted out of office so the situation can be changed.

But in Chicago, the meters were leased on a 50 or 99 year lease and it is completely legal.  So the private operator can now line his pockets with impunity, and there is little that the voters can do about it.