Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[NYC Rick]

Originally Posted by shakman

Would Utah's Government resort to toll roads if the dollar amount needed is not met by the Feds?

Does Utah have any toll roads?

I live in an area where the toll roads are the New York Thruway and the New Jersey tunpike. What you get with a toll road is not all negative. All roads are supremely maintained and for the most part extremely efficient in delivering you where you want to go.

Yes... no one wants to pay for a drive on something that was once free. However, you pay for what you get. Now I know that SLC and Utah will not have to charge nearly what it costs out here but from my experience, after you use them you realize the benefits.

It also funds other projects that better the state.

After all of that, I hate paying tolls...but you get used to it. At least you do not have bridges at 4 to 6+ dollars a pop.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

I live in an area where the toll roads are the New York Thruway and the New Jersey tunpike. What you get with a toll road is not all negative. All roads are supremely maintained and for the most part extremely efficient in delivering you where you want to go.

Yes... no one wants to pay for a drive on something that was once free. However, you pay for what you get. Now I know that SLC and Utah will not have to charge nearly what it costs out here but from my experience, after you use them you realize the benefits.

It also funds other projects that better the state.

After all of that, I hate paying tolls...but you get used to it. At least you do not have bridges at 4 to 6+ dollars a pop.

Like you, I warmed up to tolls and eventually become a supporter of them after I lived in the Bay Area. Of course, $5 tolls are rather unpleasant - but I think Utah would never have to pass $2 at the most. Freeway tolls are always much cheaper than bridges and tunnels.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by i-215

Well, the toll lanes on the 91 in O.C. are already becoming that. All I saw were Lexuses and BMWs flying past at 80 cents to $1 per mile. Do you really think the average person, especially the poor can afford to spend $5 to drive five miles?

The fairer way would be to raise the fuel tax. That still allows the poor to drive Honda Civics and drive economically as a way to offset a toll, which smacks everybody, regardless of their wheels, be it: Escalade or Corolla.

In the end if the entire highway was congestion pricing, it would already be a "caste system" in parts of Southern California. What if they tolled the 101 between Santa Barbara and the San Fernando Valley? Who drives that road? Why it's the poor Hispanic workers who cook the food and mop the mansions of those who can afford to live there.

We must never forget that (at least in other cities than SLC) many times the commuters we see driving long distances aren't pansy middle-class people who want their McMansions. A lot of them are the poor, the immigrants, the less advantaged who simply cannot afford to live near their job. But they can afford a '91 Civic and the gas to drive it. They can afford the time to drive there.

And it makes me quite upset when I hear scheming "don't tax me"-style Republicans proposing to punish the very people who mow their lawns.

Maybe we could have 4 toll plazas along I-15 that charge 50 cents each (6th South, Spagettii Bowl, I-215 Interchange, and Point of the Mountain) Price-sensative people from Magna and West Valley could skip the toll completely by going down I-80 to the 215, then down the 201, and wealthier people from Draper would pay $2. Sound fair?

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Maybe we could have 4 toll plazas along I-15 that charge 50 cents each (6th South, Spagettii Bowl, I-215 Interchange, and Point of the Mountain) Price-sensative people from Magna and West Valley could skip the toll completely by going down I-80 to the 215, then down the 201, and wealthier people from Draper would pay $2. Sound fair?

Well, I don't really think picking on any group is really that fair. I guess I just don't see what broken with the current system. I pay my fuel taxes. Taxes have already paid for the land. I'm willing to pay higher fuel taxes to meet inflation.

Beyond that why is mobility so bad? Sprawl? That's only one negative side-effect along side the dozens of positive benefits.

And if sprawl is your problem, than don't bother with tolling. Just talk to anyone from Denver about E-470 (the toll road). They call it "a sprawl machine."

[urbanboy]

Sprawl encompasses many problems, so it's not fair to say that sprawl is only one negative side-effect [to automobile mobility] along side the dozens of positive benefits.
What the benefits are, I am not sure. Whatever they may be, I'm sure they only affect a certain demographic/fraction of the population.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Sprawl encompasses many problems, so it's not fair to say that sprawl is only one negative side-effect [to automobile mobility] along side the dozens of positive benefits.
What the benefits are, I am not sure. Whatever they may be, I'm sure they only affect a certain demographic/fraction of the population.

The benefits of automobile mobility is a hit with only a fraction of the population. You know, a fraction like 92/100.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

What the benefits are, I am not sure.

• Increased productivity.
• Increased family time at home.
• Ability to easily ship goods locally.
• Decreased at-idle emissions (the worst burning a car can produce)
• Vacations
• Ability to reasonable conduct business in multiple points (sales, etc.)
• Law enforcement
• Emergency access
• Societal openness
• Preservation of the Right to Travel
• Increased opportunities for teen and college-aged driving
• Young family mobility
• Free ROWs for future transit development
• Lack of claustrophobia

If we could suddenly "jump" to full "New York"-style urbanization overnight, then we probably wouldn't see a drag on any of the above, if we chose to penalize driving. But honestly, we are a suburban nation right now. To toll the highways in the West with our current state would be like a heart-attack on our transportation system.



We can't blindly believe that all new growth can be in-fill. Sure, it's a part of the plan ... and good in-fill will help cut back on sprawl.

It's better to build areas of town ... oases, if you will ... that are pedestrian friendly, and urbanized. In time you can expand these areas, redeveloping old suburbs, as the market dictates. Rather than punishing suburbs, show the benefits of urbanized areas. In time, trends will shift and more people will simply choose to live in denser quarters. But if you have to punish suburbia, then all you're really saying is that your urbanized area is junk. The general marketplace does not want to live there on their own free will. So, we need to improve it.



But oddly enough, it will also increase car traffic, as sections of the population cross commute between urbanized areas.

May I cite Hollywood, California: Very urbanized. Surprisingly dense. Yet, some of the worst traffic I've seen because there is no freeway to pull the cars off Wilshire, Pico, Olympic, Beverly, and Hollywood Blvd(s). Why would I want to leisurely shop along those streets? There's too much traffic. But if we could throw those cars onto a (gasp, dun dun duh!!!) freeway or tunnel freeway so we don't disrupt the neighborhood too much*, then I'd be much more inclined to enjoy a nice stroll through town.

*That concession courtesy of Jane Jacobs, who now haunts the back of my mind from time to time, thanks to your book suggestion. :-)

[anyiliang]

I dont mind toll road. In Dallas, there are lots of toll road. The price is not bad. I think it is 75 cents or so. Plus the good thing is that the freeway will get built faster.

Also, over here in Taiwan, all Freeways are toll roads. It cost around $1.25 for every 20 miles, I think.

[WeST]

I have followed this site for a couple of years and finally thought I would start adding my two cents into the mix. I have a background that has given me somewhat of an unique perspective on some of these issues. Some of my background is with the legislature. As far as the gas tax/toll issue, I don't think Utahns will accept tolling any time soon, as evidenced by the major backlash surrounding UDOT's efforts to toll the Mountain View Corridor. I think there are some definite benefits to tolling that Utah should consider before dismissing the idea.

The gas tax issue is interesting because I don't think people realize these days how much of that tax funds our road system. Since we haven't raised it in many years and fuel efficiency has improved, our gas taxes only fund a little over half of the total cost of road building and maintenance. If I remember right, we would have to raise taxes about 40%+ on state and federal to cover those costs. Right now those costs are covered by monies from the general fund. Meaning, we pay for it out of our sales taxes.

In summary, while I love cars and agree with i-215 that they have been an amazing invention, we have mismanaged their expansion and proliferation. We tend to ignore the external costs they push onto society, especially the elderly, young, pregnant and sick. I think that not raising the gas tax just continues a policy of "externalizing" our costs of driving. While I have major concerns with the modern-day environmental movement, I likewise am frustrated when people are unwilling to pay for the costs of their lifestyle, but rather expect others to pick up the tab.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by WeST

.
In summary, while I love cars and agree with i-215 that they have been an amazing invention, we have mismanaged their expansion and proliferation. We tend to ignore the external costs they push onto society, especially the elderly, young, pregnant and sick. I think that not raising the gas tax just continues a policy of "externalizing" our costs of driving. While I have major concerns with the modern-day environmental movement, I likewise am frustrated when people are unwilling to pay for the costs of their lifestyle, but rather expect others to pick up the tab.

Thank you WeST for your input! Welcome to the forum.

I really appreciate that you brought up the elderly, young etc. I would also include the disabled. These demographics (which make up a large % of our population) are not able to drive and therefore, in a car based society, become dependent on those who can. This can be especially hard on the elderly; who, after being independent for most of their lives, now have to depend on others for mobility and the completion of everyday tasks.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by i-215

• Increased productivity.
• Increased family time at home.
• Ability to easily ship goods locally.
• Decreased at-idle emissions (the worst burning a car can produce)
• Vacations
• Ability to reasonable conduct business in multiple points (sales, etc.)
• Law enforcement
• Emergency access
• Societal openness
• Preservation of the Right to Travel
• Increased opportunities for teen and college-aged driving
• Young family mobility
• Free ROWs for future transit development
• Lack of claustrophobia

I am not so sure that all of these things can be benefits. The car does not increase family time at home. Living close to your work does. This is more of a reflection of society's values than anything else, but we have become far too concerned with money, so much so that we are willing to spend about an hour (depending on where you live and work) per day driving to and from work. Based on my experience, having increased driving opportunities for teens is not so good.

Can't everything on the list be maintained and improved by taking private vehicles with 1-2 people inside off of the road? You either do that by developing in a manner that provides jobs close to home and the ability to walk, ride a bike, push a stroller, or jump on a bus/trolley/train or you spend billions of tax payer dollers on big freeways that just push the problem further down the line. Whatever your perspective is, there needs to be a way to fund any kind of infrastructure, whether it is roads or rails. I think regulating the development side is far more attainable than building enough infrastructure to "solve" congestion. Unfortunately there is no regional authority to do so every city up and down the wasatch front wants whatever they can get.

[arkhitektor]

I think they should make the CCC skybridge a toll bridge:-)

[i-215]

Originally Posted by anyiliang

I dont mind toll road. In Dallas, there are lots of toll road. The price is not bad. I think it is 75 cents or so. Plus the good thing is that the freeway will get built faster.

Also, over here in Taiwan, all Freeways are toll roads. It cost around $1.25 for every 20 miles, I think.

Those highways were tolled from day one. Tolling an existing Interstate or state freeway is quite different.

I can't figure out why we can't raise the gas tax, and set it to automatically increase with inflation? It's so ridiculously simple, encourages conservation, and provides a means for the poor to still be able to drive (motorcycle, Honda Civic, etc.)

[urbanboy]

I like the gas tax idea. I think it would encourage people to make the transition to electric vehicles sooner rather than later. After gas powered cars are no longer in production, and all gas pumps have been shut down, an annual tax based on car registration could fulfill the same need.

I think an additional tax on gas for environmental protection expenses is also needed.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by cololi

I am not so sure that all of these things can be benefits. The car does not increase family time at home. Living close to your work does. This is more of a reflection of society's values than anything else, but we have become far too concerned with money, so much so that we are willing to spend about an hour (depending on where you live and work) per day driving to and from work. Based on my experience, having increased driving opportunities for teens is not so good.

Can't everything on the list be maintained and improved by taking private vehicles with 1-2 people inside off of the road? You either do that by developing in a manner that provides jobs close to home and the ability to walk, ride a bike, push a stroller, or jump on a bus/trolley/train or you spend billions of tax payer dollers on big freeways that just push the problem further down the line. Whatever your perspective is, there needs to be a way to fund any kind of infrastructure, whether it is roads or rails. I think regulating the development side is far more attainable than building enough infrastructure to "solve" congestion. Unfortunately there is no regional authority to do so every city up and down the wasatch front wants whatever they can get.

AMEN!

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

I think they should make the CCC skybridge a toll bridge:-)

[scrapernerd]

HOW TO ANNOY A LIBERAL: ...work hard and be happy no matter the consequences, even if it means letting our planet go to pot, it will all be taken care of at the second coming, right?

Hey Urbanboy I thought liberals Liked pot?

[jmonkey]

wait......what?

Our planet is going to pot? Dudes, that would be soooo sweeeet!

[skierforlife17]

WWOOOOHHOO lets are party like were in college again.. well i still am so i guess ill keep partyin.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

I like the gas tax idea. I think it would encourage people to make the transition to electric vehicles sooner rather than later. After gas powered cars are no longer in production, and all gas pumps have been shut down, an annual tax based on car registration could fulfill the same need.

I think an additional tax on gas for environmental protection expenses is also needed.

I agree on everything ... (except the green fee).