Poll: Should MoDOT Make I-70 A Toll Road To Raise Funds?
Missouri doesn’t allow toll roads but MoDOT wants to change that.
Under the scenario, MoDOT would contract with a private firm to rebuild I-70 and collect tolls as specified in the contract. In the existing model, no tolls would be collected in the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas.
State lawmakers briefed about the concept estimate about 50 percent of Missourians would support a toll project. (Source)
Another option is increasing the state fuel tax 0.15¢ per gallon.
In the 21+ years I’ve lived in St. Louis I’ve made 15-20 round trip drives to Oklahoma City, paying tolls to drive on I-44. My trip two weeks ago cost me $16 in tolls. I bought gas twice in Oklahoma on this trip but paid nowhere near $16 in Oklahoma gas taxes. I used the road and, over the years, have paid for said use to the tune of about $200.
From a 2002 MoDOT study on tolls:
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) was established in 1947 to construct, operate and maintain the Turner Turnpike. In 1954, OTA’s responsibility was expanded to include the construction of additional turnpikes. In 1999, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority changed its name to the Oklahoma Transportation Authority. Today there are 566 miles of toll roads in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Transportation Authority board consists of seven members including the Governor and one from each of the six congressional districts. They are appointed by the Governor and approved by the State Senate.
Operation of the Oklahoma turnpike system is financed by toll and concessionaire rentals. The average toll rate for passenger cars is 4.1 cents per mile and 10.6 cents per mile for commercial vehicles. The revenues generated by tolls and concessionaire rentals pays for all of the operation, maintenance, and construction costs of the Turnpike. The Operating Revenues in 2000 were $132.8 million of which $14.2 went to toll collections and $35.6 million went to debt service. PIKEPASS is the electronic toll system for the turnpike. PIKEPASS users comprise 49 percent of the total vehicle traffic.
The Oklahoma system of toll collection has changed since I first moved to St. Louis in 1990. At that time you took a ticket to show where you entered the toll road and paid when you exited. Now they have two big toll plazas along I-44, one between the Missouri state line and Tulsa and the second between Tulsa and Oklahoma City.
If you enter from Missouri but exit before the toll plaza then you pay at the exit. These are unmanned booth with bill changers so drivers can get coin to deposit into the bin. If you exit after the toll plaza but before the end of that section you present your receipt to the person who refunds you the difference. An electronic device (PIKEPASS) is available so you don’t have to stop, you just keep on driving and it debits and credits your pre-paid account.
Since I only do the drive once a year I’ve never bothered getting the device, even though I’d save money each trip (PIKEPASS users get a discount on tolls). A round trip in a semi-truck costs $80 ($20 per stop). I noticed many trucks in the toll plaza during my four stops to pay. MoDOT seems to think everyone will use an electronic device, which just isn’t true based on my experience.MoDOT’s 2002 report indicates 49% pay electronically. Obviously this may be different nine years later.
On the positive side, I-44 in Oklahoma is very well maintained and self sufficient when you include federal transportation funds. The toll booths also create jobs in rural areas.
Right now Missouri is in the bottom group of states when it comes to gas taxes. MoDOT’s 15¢ per gallon alternative would put us near the top — paid by everyone in the state. Clearly they are trying to get the Missouri legislature to allow them to toll I-70. Regardless of tolls on I-70 I think our gas taxes should be increased 3-5 cents per gallon to put us into the average for the surrounding states.
The question of tolling I-70 is the poll topic this week. You can vote in the right sidebar and add comments below.
– Steve Patterson
We should implement the toll and add a couple of cents per mile to fund high speed rail between KC and STL. Drivers would benefit with fewer cars on the road.
We should implement the toll and add a couple of cents per mile to fund high speed rail between KC and STL. Drivers would benefit with fewer cars on the road.
Great idea and the high speed rail needs to run in the middle of the east-west bound lanes. This deals with the right of way issue, it’s basically a straight line, the track is a dedicated one and most of all, its great advertising as the train blows everything away at 150 miles per hour. Start it at Lambert Metro-Link and terminate it at the Sprint center with one stop in Columbia. If you to want to revolutionize transit, this is the plan!
A toll is ok if no new lanes are added. I am afraid the tolls are a way to raise money to build truck only lanes. We need to move freight away from highways and toward rail.
A toll is ok if no new lanes are added. I am afraid the tolls are a way to raise money to build truck only lanes. We need to move freight away from highways and toward rail.
I equate tolling existing freeways with Willie Sutton’s famous observation – “Why do you rob banks?” “Because that is where the money is.” MoDOT is looking at I-70 precisely becaues it carries a lot of traffic. And, because it carries a lot of traffic, it stands to reason that a lot of fuel is being consumed, presumably fuel where a significant percentage is already generating Missouri highway taxes. What MoDOT doesn’t want to do is to charge rural users for the true cost of maintaining lightly-used rural highways. The cost-per-mile to maintain rural two-lane highways needs to be balanced against the fuel taxes those users pay, and that is the political third rail the legislature simply don’t want to touch.
I grew up in Kentucky. They built a half dozen toll roads during the 1960’s 70’s and 80’s. Many of those roads have been paid for in full and the tolls removed. I really don’t have a problem with that plan; I do have a problem with using tolls for ongoing “maintenance”; that’s what we pay gas taxes for. The problem we’re facing in Missouri is simply one of too low taxes, thus too little income. A toll is just a targeted tax. We can either be honest and forthright and raise taxes on everyone to pay for the roads we all use or we can be sneaky and devious and add tolls to selected highways. Money is fungible, it’s all green. If tolls generate $X millions, then $X millions can and will then be spent on other, non-I-70 projects.
Bigger picture is the whole better highways encourage sprawl argument. Where tolls are really needed is on highways like 270, 141 and the Page Avenue Extension. The costs of sprawl could be reflected in tolls, both directly and indirectly, and could be used to shape behaviors to minimize urban driving. Something as simple as starting the I-70 tolls on the Blanchette Bridge, instead of west of Wentzville or Lake St. Louis, would impact some of our westward urban sprawl here.
I equate tolling existing freeways with Willie Sutton’s famous observation – “Why do you rob banks?” “Because that is where the money is.” MoDOT is looking at I-70 precisely becaues it carries a lot of traffic. And, because it carries a lot of traffic, it stands to reason that a lot of fuel is being consumed, presumably fuel where a significant percentage is already generating Missouri highway taxes. What MoDOT doesn’t want to do is to charge rural users for the true cost of maintaining lightly-used rural highways. The cost-per-mile to maintain rural two-lane highways needs to be balanced against the fuel taxes those users pay, and that is the political third rail the legislature simply don’t want to touch.
I grew up in Kentucky. They built a half dozen toll roads during the 1960’s 70’s and 80’s. Many of those roads have been paid for in full and the tolls removed. I really don’t have a problem with that plan; I do have a problem with using tolls for ongoing “maintenance”; that’s what we pay gas taxes for. The problem we’re facing in Missouri is simply one of too low taxes, thus too little income. A toll is just a targeted tax. We can either be honest and forthright and raise taxes on everyone to pay for the roads we all use or we can be sneaky and devious and add tolls to selected highways. Money is fungible, it’s all green. If tolls generate $X millions, then $X millions can and will then be spent on other, non-I-70 projects.
Bigger picture is the whole better highways encourage sprawl argument. Where tolls are really needed is on highways like 270, 141 and the Page Avenue Extension. The costs of sprawl could be reflected in tolls, both directly and indirectly, and could be used to shape behaviors to minimize urban driving. Something as simple as starting the I-70 tolls on the Blanchette Bridge, instead of west of Wentzville or Lake St. Louis, would impact some of our westward urban sprawl here.
The big issue here is not only the potential for tolls, but that MODOT wants to privatize it. I suspect this will be a big issue that would weaken support for tolls. But, JZ71, privitization would mean that I-70 tolls would stay on I-70, for better or worse. Previously, the most talked about alternative was a sales tax increase to pay for I-70 (and possibly I-44) expansion. This has a huge downside of course as sales taxes are regressive and non-drivers would be forced to pay for something they don’t use; however, a potential sweetener is that a portion of sales tax funding could be used for transit, rail and bike/ped projects. As gas tax can only be used for highways per MO constitution, I could see a well-crafted sales tax ballot initiative funding a comprehensive transportation plan as something to consider. But either way, don’t expect anything to be approved until a few more years.
The big issue here is not only the potential for tolls, but that MODOT wants to privatize it. I suspect this will be a big issue that would weaken support for tolls. But, JZ71, privitization would mean that I-70 tolls would stay on I-70, for better or worse. Previously, the most talked about alternative was a sales tax increase to pay for I-70 (and possibly I-44) expansion. This has a huge downside of course as sales taxes are regressive and non-drivers would be forced to pay for something they don’t use; however, a potential sweetener is that a portion of sales tax funding could be used for transit, rail and bike/ped projects. As gas tax can only be used for highways per MO constitution, I could see a well-crafted sales tax ballot initiative funding a comprehensive transportation plan as something to consider. But either way, don’t expect anything to be approved until a few more years.
You think we should increase our gas taxes just to put us into the same with other states? What have you been smoking? Cheaper gas is a GOOD thing, not a BAD thing. We want our gas to be cheaper than other states, not the same. Why pay more when you can have it for less?
You think we should increase our gas taxes just to put us into the same with other states? What have you been smoking? Cheaper gas is a GOOD thing, not a BAD thing. We want our gas to be cheaper than other states, not the same. Why pay more when you can have it for less?
I want people to drive less. I want people to know the true cost of gasoline, the way the rest of the world does.
The “true cost” of gasoline is what it costs the petroleum companies to produce and distribute it. Taxes are not a direct part of its cost. Taxes are, however, a part of the true cost of maintaining our transportation infrastructure. I also agree that taxes can be used to modify the end users’ behavior; the question is SHOULD taxes be used by the government to do so? Raising gas prices will make it more expensive to drive; the question is will there a direct reduction in the number of miles driven? Or, will the government just be getting more taxes for them spend wisely and/or squander? And costing all of us more?!
Once again you are blinded by free market glasses: “The federal government subsidizes the oil industry with numerous tax breaks and government protection programs worth billions of dollars annually. These benefits are designed to ensure that domestic oil companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers.” Source: http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html
You’re missing my point, it’s your semantics I was questioning, not the main issue. I’d like to see people drive less, as well. But the big reason we drive more is because there is sprawl, not because gas is “too cheap”. We continue to build new, wider highways in the suburbs, instead of letting people sit in the traffic they’ve created, so people follow the path of least resistance (build it and they will come). Adding tolls to I-70 will do very little to address this paradigm; adding tolls to the new Mississippi River bridge would be a more effective solution, as would be adding tolls to I-270 and/or the conversion of US 40 into the I-64 freeway in St. Charles County. Leaving rural roads two lanes wide and building parallel and faster mass transit will do more to change consumer choices than to try and add buses to Highway K.
This also has very little to do with “free market glasses”. Eurpoean countries impose gas taxes that are much higher than any we see in the good old US of A, and not all of those taxes go to supporting their highway system, they go to other things, like transit and health care. This is not free market, this is socialism, as all taxes are – you’re redistributing wealth for the greater common good. The question is who decides what the greater common good is or should be? You believe that too much is being spent to support the single-occupant vehicle and not enough is being spent on public transit. People in St. Charles County see little need for public transit and a big need for more freeways. Who’s right? Who gets to decide? Should tolls and higher taxes be used to shape behavior? Or, should urban growth boundaries be imposed to tame the sprawl monster, as Portland and Boulder have done?
Okay forcing people out of their cars by making it more expensive is a weak and inefficient method to getting people to be more environmental. Greeniacs may love PT and may be willing to forgive its faults, but the majority of the public are not like that. Sure PT may be able to save money (not always), but sometimes people prefer saving time.
You want people to drive less? Then advocate for Metro to start providing a reasonable, efficient service worth paying for. Wasting 4 hours a day on PT is not a good use of my time. That is time I could spending doing other things (and without using a car too) that I couldn’t do on a bus.
People are not going to buy into this green bandwagon. You guys and Metro can’t wait for the ridership to magically increase. Forcing prices to go up will not make a large difference and when they go down (and they always do at some point), people will return to their cars. Where it stands, Metro’s service is so terrible most people prefer to pay more and get better service from their car. Its one thing to sacrifice 10 minutes on top of your current commute, but an hour or two? No thank you.
As for tolls. I’d prefer the toll method. Make people pay for the services they use. Now I’ll keep supporting Metro because I have used it, sometimes am forced to use it and its always a great back up. But in the case of I 70, I have no business on that road that would make me even use it so why should I pay in gas taxes because some people use it and others are greeniacs who think forcing people to pay more somehow equals more people will drive less?
Metro serves St. Louis City & County and does a decent job — something I learned when I started using the system. Metro does not go to St. Charles County, much less Kansas City.
I’ve been forced to use Metro for 4 years without a car. Work on Sundays was deplorable because the nearest bus to me did not run. Things got so bad with Metro that I finally broke down and got a car for my family to share.
Metro may be great for you but for 99% of us it is not great. And the fact that ST. Charles County does not have transit is a testament to how most people don’t want an inferior product.
You want us to get out of the car, it is going to have to do better than it is. You and the others on this site may be willing to settle for bad service but the rest of us are not in this county are not. Metro is going to have to actually provide a decent level of service that gets you from point A to Point B in a timely manner if it wants money from anyone.
You wouldn’t go to the store to buy 1 solitary pizza roll and be told that in order to get another, demand has for it has to be increased. Well, its the same game with public transportation.
Greeniacs such as yourself are going about this entire problem the wrong way and as a result, you’ll never get heard or ever get what you want.
Public transit service is often a function of funding & population density. I happen to live where I can catch 3 bus lines within a block of my place and 3-4 more within 3 blocks. Others aren’t so fortunate. As for St. Charles, they don’t want to fund transit no matter how great the service. They want everyone to drive or stay out.
And since PT works around funding and pop. density, it will never improve beyond being a way of life for the poor and an alternative for greeniacs who somehow think it will make a difference. You can’t use the fact that you live in an area close to transit to gauge what is best for the rest of us. The fact remains that for most of us, it is out of reach or poorly timed. Sometimes the only thing more important than saving money is saving time.
And St. Charles knows from seeing how bad Metro is in STL County that it would just be a waste of money. A friend of mine has to drive 30 minutes from St. Charles to get to her university here. That would quickly translate into at least a 2 hour trip via Metro were there to be buses and trains. A friend of mine once went to West County Mall via PT and it took 2 hours and she nearly missed a connection which would have put it at 3 hours. By car it takes 25 minutes.
If Metro actually ran their buses more, ran them on Sundays, had more express routes, taught their bus drivers to have some respect (such as letting passengers on when it is freezing outside), gave bigger buses to big routes rather than small buses, and actually used the buses themselves to see first hand what needs to be done rather than making terrible guesses, maybe people would be more open to transit.
You can keep excusing Metro’s low standards but most people know different. Like I said, you want people to get out of their cars, you are going to have to actually improve the service first.
I don’t excuse Metro but I do understand the realities of public transit funding and how Missouri has prioritized highways over transit. Now MoDOT is faced with more highway infrastructure than they can maintain. Having motorists pay to use I-70 has nothing to do with Metro.
No but, when you say you want people to drive less by raising gas taxes, what else are they going to use? So yes, Metro does play a role.
And motorists should pay for I-70 that is why we should use toll roads. Make those who actually use the road pay for the road. But it shouldn’t a burden on the rest of us.
Raising the gas tax 3-5¢ per gallon would mean the person that uses 10 gallons per week would pay another $15-$26 per year. This might prompt co-workers to look at carpooling or for drivers to combine trips to use less gas but it’s not going to force everyone to use mass transit.
But those who drive across state might decide to consider Amtrak.
Again, making everyone pay for what a few use is corrupt.
Carpooling is a failure for the majority of people hence why they use cars. And I’ve looked up Amtrak prices and they are pretty expensive.
Just because you despise cars doesn’t mean its wrong to use cars. Sure there may be an environmental issue with them but there are hundreds of things that are far worse. Greeniacs need to realize that and stop trying to give the rest of us reasons to be against your “cause”.
“Again, making everyone pay for what a few use is corrupt.” So who’s going to pay for all those miles of rural roads that few of us urbanites use?!
Not my problem. IF you want to pay for it, then by all means do so. But I don’t use them. There are roads around here that I do use that are sorely lacking that I’d rather put my money towards.
Sounds like you think that we should just get rid of MoDOT and the federal Transportation Department entirely and just let local folks spend local money on local roads?
That is the true libertarian way. If all MoDot and FDOT can do is find ways to burden taxpayers even more especially under the assumption that we somehow should foot the bill every time they go over it, then maybe it is time to rethink their usefulness and consider changing things.
I understand your philosophical argument, but how do you propose to implement it? Have toll plazas / “border checkpoints” at every county line or city limit? The reason why the government where you live isn’t “fixing the roads around where I live” to your satisfaction is likely as simple that your fellow local voters are unwilling to raise their taxes to cover the cost!
And if they can do that, then I should be able to exercise the exact same right with a highway I don’t use at all.
Look, you may be okay with the government over taxing you even after the misuse what funds we give them, but I am not supportive of that.
You didn’t answer my question – how do you propose to implement a totally-privately-funded street and highway system? Will you be totally responsible for your half of the road in front of your home (and business)? Will you be able to charge a toll from anyone using it? Or, will you band together with your neighbors, pool your resources, and maintain a half mile or mile of streets, and charge a toll for that? Or, will you rely on your city? Your county? What is the tipping point? You are not an island. You don’t have a well and a septic tank. You don’t grow all the food you eat and generate all the electricity you consume. You certainly didn’t create the technology that gives you access to the internet, and you’re not providing your own medical care or education. We live in communities for a reason, it’s called leverage, we can’t all do everything individually. And the collection and distribution of resources will NEVER be done in a completely “fair” manner. There will ALWAYS be people getting more than they contribute, just like there will always be people contributing more than they feel like they get in return, aka, in yoour mind, getting screwed. The present system ain’t perfect, but give me a better answer, otther than every man for themselves.
You may not ever travel I-70, but a lot of the things you buy do. Just like you may not use public transit, but many of the people working at the restaurants and shops you frequent do. Don’t think that just because your tires never touch a specific road that it is not important to you, and deserving of your financial support.
While that may be true, that still doesn’t change the fact that I’d rather my money go towards fixing the roads around where I live. That is far more important than using my money to fix a road that I don’t use.
Also by your rationale, everyone in every state should pay for I 70 because a truck may go through it to get to a different state entirely.
And if so, then make the federal gov, not the state, pay for it.
Julie, the problem with your arguement is that gas tax revenue is declining in part to more efficient vehicles where as the number of roads keeps expanding and deteriorating and growth marches on. The reality is that gas taxes only cover half the cost to maintain and build our nations roads. At some point you have to pay the piper.
I want people to drive less. I want people to know the true cost of gasoline, the way the rest of the world does.
People need to understand this is going on across the country and the Republicans love it. It’s akin to privatizing the prisons.  The state legislatures should be funding these projects. A Toll would help private companies make money off of the citizens. Which is total BS. If you build a toll road then only charge the big mac trucks for usage afterall there the ones tearing up our highwaysÂ
People need to understand this is going on across the country and the Republicans love it. It’s akin to privatizing the prisons. The state legislatures should be funding these projects. A Toll would help private companies make money off of the citizens. Which is total BS. If you build a toll road then only charge the big mac trucks for usage afterall there the ones tearing up our highways
The “true cost” of gasoline is what it costs the petroleum companies to produce and distribute it. Taxes are not a direct part of its cost. Taxes are, however, a part of the true cost of maintaining our transportation infrastructure. I also agree that taxes can be used to modify the end users’ behavior; the question is SHOULD taxes be used by the government to do so? Raising gas prices will make it more expensive to drive; the question is will there a direct reduction in the number of miles driven? Or, will the government just be getting more taxes for them spend wisely and/or squander? And costing all of us more?!
Once again you are blinded by free market glasses: “The federal government subsidizes the oil industry with numerous tax breaks and government protection programs worth billions of dollars annually. These benefits are designed to ensure that domestic oil companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers.” Source: http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html
I don’t believe tolls should be enacted nor any tax increases given to MoDot until a complete overhaul of transportation priorities take place. We, as a people, are facing major problems if we do not change our ways, we have to start working on changes now, not pretend some solution will present itself in the future, it will be too late then. Pick your poison, global warming, oil wars, oil and gas unavailable, both in the near and distant future, pollution and health concerns, the liveablilty of cities and the environment, the list is basically endless. There are numerous reasons to rethink and implement new strategies for transportation and movement systems. Where is that discussion?
In any case MoDot is not a good steward of money. How long has MoDot known Highway 70 existed? I would hope since it was built. Why hasn’t money been put aside for maintenance all along, instead of crying the blues about no funding now? Another little fun fact is that Missouri is 5th in the nation in miles of roads, while 18 and 20th in population and land area. Clearly mismanagement has been going on for years for this to occur (not only that, Missouri has enormous state forests and large tracts of land in Southern Missouri that you cannot reasonably build roads on).
MoDot is unaccountable for its actions and they have led Missouri citizens into a difficult situation created by their mismanagement. Only a complete overhaul of personnel and philosophy is acceptable.
As vital as new strategies in transportation are to the people of Missouri, do you hear anything from MoDot? from the major media? no, it is business as usual, just stuff more money into the pockets of elite insiders, that is what is really accomplished. That is the true agenda of MoDot.
I don’t believe tolls should be enacted nor any tax increases given to MoDot until a complete overhaul of transportation priorities take place. We, as a people, are facing major problems if we do not change our ways, we have to start working on changes now, not pretend some solution will present itself in the future, it will be too late then. Pick your poison, global warming, oil wars, oil and gas unavailable, both in the near and distant future, pollution and health concerns, the liveablilty of cities and the environment, the list is basically endless. There are numerous reasons to rethink and implement new strategies for transportation and movement systems. Where is that discussion?
In any case MoDot is not a good steward of money. How long has MoDot known Highway 70 existed? I would hope since it was built. Why hasn’t money been put aside for maintenance all along, instead of crying the blues about no funding now? Another little fun fact is that Missouri is 5th in the nation in miles of roads, while 18 and 20th in population and land area. Clearly mismanagement has been going on for years for this to occur (not only that, Missouri has enormous state forests and large tracts of land in Southern Missouri that you cannot reasonably build roads on).
MoDot is unaccountable for its actions and they have led Missouri citizens into a difficult situation created by their mismanagement. Only a complete overhaul of personnel and philosophy is acceptable.
As vital as new strategies in transportation are to the people of Missouri, do you hear anything from MoDot? from the major media? no, it is business as usual, just stuff more money into the pockets of elite insiders, that is what is really accomplished. That is the true agenda of MoDot.
Julie, the problem with your arguement is that gas tax revenue is declining in part to more efficient vehicles where as the number of roads keeps expanding and deteriorating and growth marches on. The reality is that gas taxes only cover half the cost to maintain and build our nations roads. At some point you have to pay the piper.  Â
You’re missing my point, it’s your semantics I was questioning, not the main issue. I’d like to see people drive less, as well. But the big reason we drive more is because there is sprawl, not because gas is “too cheap”. We continue to build new, wider highways in the suburbs, instead of letting people sit in the traffic they’ve created, so people follow the path of least resistance (build it and they will come). Adding tolls to I-70 will do very little to address this paradigm; adding tolls to the new Mississippi River bridge would be a more effective solution, as would be adding tolls to I-270 and/or the conversion of US 40 into the I-64 freeway in St. Charles County. Leaving rural roads two lanes wide and building parallel and faster mass transit will do more to change consumer choices than to try and add buses to Highway K.
This also has very little to do with “free market glasses”. Eurpoean countries impose gas taxes that are much higher than any we see in the good old US of A, and not all of those taxes go to supporting their highway system, they go to other things, like transit and health care. This is not free market, this is socialism, as all taxes are – you’re redistributing wealth for the greater common good. The question is who decides what the greater common good is or should be? You believe that too much is being spent to support the single-occupant vehicle and not enough is being spent on public transit. People in St. Charles County see little need for public transit and a big need for more freeways. Who’s right? Who gets to decide? Should tolls and higher taxes be used to shape behavior? Or, should urban growth boundaries be imposed to tame the sprawl monster, as Portland and Boulder have done?
Great idea and the high speed rail needs to run in the middle of the east-west bound lanes. This deals with the right of way issue, it’s basically a straight line, the track is a dedicated one and most of all, its great advertising as the train blows everything away at 150 miles per hour. Start it at Lambert Metro-Link and terminate it at the Sprint center with one stop in Columbia. If you to want to revolutionize transit, this is the plan!
JZ71 3:09 is just flat wrong. The true cost of petroleum must include the costs of the air and water pollution created by the extraction, refining and burning of petroleum, the degradation of the environment caused by the extraction and transportation of the raw materials and finished products and even the airwaves that are degraded by those insulting API commercials.
Raising the cost to, say $5-$6 a gallon by applying $3 a gallon tax would provide revenue to repair the highways, help finance the passenger rail line that Mark @ 11:47 mentioned, dissuade people from driving and push them toward more energy efficient transportation. All good things. As for turning it over to a private corporation, I am basically opposed to ceding Public functions to private corporate interests; whether they be transportation, education, or incarceration. Certainly, the experience nationwide with the latter two has not been particularly encouraging.
JZ71 3:09 is just flat wrong. The true cost of petroleum must include the costs of the air and water pollution created by the extraction, refining and burning of petroleum, the degradation of the environment caused by the extraction and transportation of the raw materials and finished products and even the airwaves that are degraded by those insulting API commercials.
Raising the cost to, say $5-$6 a gallon by applying $3 a gallon tax would provide revenue to repair the highways, help finance the passenger rail line that Mark @ 11:47 mentioned, dissuade people from driving and push them toward more energy efficient transportation. All good things. As for turning it over to a private corporation, I am basically opposed to ceding Public functions to private corporate interests; whether they be transportation, education, or incarceration. Certainly, the experience nationwide with the latter two has not been particularly encouraging.
I have no problem with raising taxes on gasoline. I do have a problem with taking I-70 and making it into a toll road to cover decades of deferred maintenance. We’ve been paying gas taxes, for years, precisely for that very purpose. If our politicians didn’t charge us enough, or if they diverted gas taxes for other purposes, then they’re guilty of malfeasance and they need to pay the costs, not us.
The news today says we’re paying 40-some cents more per gallon than we were paying a year ago, a 15%-20% increase. Will that have any noticeable impact on holiday travel? Absolutely not – we’ll gripe and grumble, but we’ll pay it! My fundamental objection is not to your goals (dissuade people from driving and push them toward more energy efficient transportation), it’s to the idea of using taxes to persuade people to “do the right thing”. If you want to change behavior, do it directly. Don’t rebuild crumbling highways, do invest in usable rail transit options. Don’t build beltways, freeways and toll roads to serve suburban area, do offer incentives to redevelop urban areas. Don’t whine about how stupid people are to live on the ever-expanding fringes of our sprawling region, do have the cojones to work toward establishing urban growth boundaries.
Bottom line, money and tax dollars are fungible – they all spend. Raising taxes is a crude way to influence outcomes, but is a great way to give politicians more money to spend. If you want people to quit smoking, don’t raise taxes, make the products illegal. If you want people to drive less and use transit more, don’t build the toll roads that will improve their drives. And, bottom line, adding tolls to I-70 will amount to double taxation – you’ll be paying the gas taxes that you pay every time you fill up, PLUS you’ll be paying a second tax/toll to drive on a highway we all already paid for once!
I have no problem with raising taxes on gasoline. I do have a problem with taking I-70 and making it into a toll road to cover decades of deferred maintenance. We’ve been paying gas taxes, for years, precisely for that very purpose. If our politicians didn’t charge us enough, or if they diverted gas taxes for other purposes, then they’re guilty of malfeasance and they need to pay the costs, not us.
The news today says we’re paying 40-some cents more per gallon than we were paying a year ago, a 15%-20% increase. Will that have any noticeable impact on holiday travel? Absolutely not – we’ll gripe and grumble, but we’ll pay it! My fundamental objection is not to your goals (dissuade people from driving and push them toward more energy efficient transportation), it’s to the idea of using taxes to persuade people to “do the right thing”. If you want to change behavior, do it directly. Don’t rebuild crumbling highways, do invest in usable rail transit options. Don’t build beltways, freeways and toll roads to serve suburban area, do offer incentives to redevelop urban areas. Don’t whine about how stupid people are to live on the ever-expanding fringes of our sprawling region, do have the cojones to work toward establishing urban growth boundaries.
Bottom line, money and tax dollars are fungible – they all spend. Raising taxes is a crude way to influence outcomes, but is a great way to give politicians more money to spend. If you want people to quit smoking, don’t raise taxes, make the products illegal. If you want people to drive less and use transit more, don’t build the toll roads that will improve their drives. And, bottom line, adding tolls to I-70 will amount to double taxation – you’ll be paying the gas taxes that you pay every time you fill up, PLUS you’ll be paying a second tax/toll to drive on a highway we all already paid for once!
Okay forcing people out of their cars by making it more expensive is a weak and inefficient method to getting people to be more environmental. Greeniacs may love PT and may be willing to forgive its faults, but the majority of the public are not like that. Sure PT may be able to save money (not always), but sometimes people prefer saving time.
You want people to drive less? Then advocate for Metro to start providing a reasonable, efficient service worth paying for. Wasting 4 hours a day on PT is not a good use of my time. That is time I could spending doing other things (and without using a car too) that I couldn’t do on a bus.
People are not going to buy into this green bandwagon. You guys and Metro can’t wait for the ridership to magically increase. Forcing prices to go up will not make a large difference and when they go down (and they always do at some point), people will return to their cars. Where it stands, Metro’s service is so terrible most people prefer to pay more and get better service from their car. Its one thing to sacrifice 10 minutes on top of your current commute, but an hour or two? No thank you.
As for tolls. I’d prefer the toll method. Make people pay for the services they use. Now I’ll keep supporting Metro because I have used it, sometimes am forced to use it and its always a great back up. But in the case of I 70, I have no business on that road that would make me even use it so why should I pay in gas taxes because some people use it and others are greeniacs who think forcing people to pay more somehow equals more people will drive less?
Metro serves St. Louis City & County and does a decent job — something I learned when I started using the system. Metro does not go to St. Charles County, much less Kansas City.
I’ve been forced to use Metro for 4 years without a car. Work on Sundays was deplorable because the nearest bus to me did not run. Things got so bad with Metro that I finally broke down and got a car for my family to share.
Metro may be great for you but for 99% of us it is not great. And the fact that ST. Charles County does not have transit is a testament to how most people don’t want an inferior product.
You want us to get out of the car, it is going to have to do better than it is. You and the others on this site may be willing to settle for bad service but the rest of us are not in this county are not. Metro is going to have to actually provide a decent level of service that gets you from point A to Point B in a timely manner if it wants money from anyone.
You wouldn’t go to the store to buy 1 solitary pizza roll and be told that in order to get another, demand has for it has to be increased. Well, its the same game with public transportation.
Greeniacs such as yourself are going about this entire problem the wrong way and as a result, you’ll never get heard or ever get what you want.
Public transit service is often a function of funding & population density. I happen to live where I can catch 3 bus lines within a block of my place and 3-4 more within 3 blocks. Others aren’t so fortunate. As for St. Charles, they don’t want to fund transit no matter how great the service. They want everyone to drive or stay out.
And since PT works around funding and pop. density, it will never improve beyond being a way of life for the poor and an alternative for greeniacs who somehow think it will make a difference. You can’t use the fact that you live in an area close to transit to gauge what is best for the rest of us. The fact remains that for most of us, it is out of reach or poorly timed. Sometimes the only thing more important than saving money is saving time.
And St. Charles knows from seeing how bad Metro is in STL County that it would just be a waste of money. A friend of mine has to drive 30 minutes from St. Charles to get to her university here. That would quickly translate into at least a 2 hour trip via Metro were there to be buses and trains. A friend of mine once went to West County Mall via PT and it took 2 hours and she nearly missed a connection which would have put it at 3 hours. By car it takes 25 minutes.
If Metro actually ran their buses more, ran them on Sundays, had more express routes, taught their bus drivers to have some respect (such as letting passengers on when it is freezing outside), gave bigger buses to big routes rather than small buses, and actually used the buses themselves to see first hand what needs to be done rather than making terrible guesses, maybe people would be more open to transit.
You can keep excusing Metro’s low standards but most people know different. Like I said, you want people to get out of their cars, you are going to have to actually improve the service first.
I don’t excuse Metro but I do understand the realities of public transit funding and how Missouri has prioritized highways over transit. Now MoDOT is faced with more highway infrastructure than they can maintain. Having motorists pay to use I-70 has nothing to do with Metro.
No but, when you say you want people to drive less by raising gas taxes, what else are they going to use? So yes, Metro does play a role.
And motorists should pay for I-70 that is why we should use toll roads. Make those who actually use the road pay for the road. But it shouldn’t a burden on the rest of us.
Raising the gas tax 3-5¢ per gallon would mean the person that uses 10 gallons per week would pay another $15-$26 per year. This might prompt co-workers to look at carpooling or for drivers to combine trips to use less gas but it’s not going to force everyone to use mass transit.
But those who drive across state might decide to consider Amtrak.
Again, making everyone pay for what a few use is corrupt.
Carpooling is a failure for the majority of people hence why they use cars. And I’ve looked up Amtrak prices and they are pretty expensive.
Just because you despise cars doesn’t mean its wrong to use cars. Sure there may be an environmental issue with them but there are hundreds of things that are far worse. Greeniacs need to realize that and stop trying to give the rest of us reasons to be against your “cause”.
“Again, making everyone pay for what a few use is corrupt.” So who’s going to pay for all those miles of rural roads that few of us urbanites use?!
Not my problem. IF you want to pay for it, then by all means do so. But I don’t use them. There are roads around here that I do use that are sorely lacking that I’d rather put my money towards.
Sounds like you think that we should just get rid of MoDOT and the federal Transportation Department entirely and just let local folks spend local money on local roads?
You may not ever travel I-70, but a lot of the things you buy do. Just like you may not use public transit, but many of the people working at the restaurants and shops you frequent do. Don’t think that just because your tires never touch a specific road that it is not important to you, and deserving of your financial support.
While that may be true, that still doesn’t change the fact that I’d rather my money go towards fixing the roads around where I live. That is far more important than using my money to fix a road that I don’t use.
That is the true libertarian way. If all MoDot and FDOT can do is find ways to burden taxpayers even more especially under the assumption that we somehow should foot the bill every time they go over it, then maybe it is time to rethink their usefulness and consider changing things.
I understand your philosophical argument, but how do you propose to implement it? Have toll plazas / “border checkpoints” at every county line or city limit? The reason why the government where you live isn’t “fixing the roads around where I live” to your satisfaction is likely as simple that your fellow local voters are unwilling to raise their taxes to cover the cost!
And if they can do that, then I should be able to exercise the exact same right with a highway I don’t use at all.
Look, you may be okay with the government over taxing you even after the misuse what funds we give them, but I am not supportive of that.
Also by your rationale, everyone in every state should pay for I 70 because a truck may go through it to get to a different state entirely.
And if so, then make the federal gov, not the state, pay for it.
You didn’t answer my question – how do you propose to implement a totally-privately-funded street and highway system? Will you be totally responsible for your half of the road in front of your home (and business)? Will you be able to charge a toll from anyone using it? Or, will you band together with your neighbors, pool your resources, and maintain a half mile or mile of streets, and charge a toll for that? Or, will you rely on your city? Your county? What is the tipping point? You are not an island. You don’t have a well and a septic tank. You don’t grow all the food you eat and generate all the electricity you consume. You certainly didn’t create the technology that gives you access to the internet, and you’re not providing your own medical care or education. We live in communities for a reason, it’s called leverage, we can’t all do everything individually. And the collection and distribution of resources will NEVER be done in a completely “fair” manner. There will ALWAYS be people getting more than they contribute, just like there will always be people contributing more than they feel like they get in return, aka, in yoour mind, getting screwed. The present system ain’t perfect, but give me a better answer, otther than every man for themselves.
I don’t think we should turn it into a toll road. They are talking about a toll of $15.00 one way from KC to St.Louis, MO. If people can’t afford the toll, then they won’t use the highway. They will look for other ways to get to where they are going.  We already pay gas tax for the roads. We shouldn’t have to pay more taxes.
The price of gas now to go from St. Louis to Kansas City is more expensive now then it used to be. Why are we paying so much?  We all know that we are overpaying for gas. The money for the roads should come from the oil companies since they are making all the money.Â
I don’t think we should turn it into a toll road. They are talking about a toll of $15.00 one way from KC to St.Louis, MO. If people can’t afford the toll, then they won’t use the highway. They will look for other ways to get to where they are going. We already pay gas tax for the roads. We shouldn’t have to pay more taxes.
The price of gas now to go from St. Louis to Kansas City is more expensive now then it used to be. Why are we paying so much? We all know that we are overpaying for gas. The money for the roads should come from the oil companies since they are making all the money.