Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PabloX68 t1_j8j3rch wrote

Reply to comment by bostexa in Why is the Masspike the only toll road in Mass? by bostexa

Good lesson in how governments often work (with the MA state government being a prime example).

The tolls were added to the Pike because they were required to fund the construction. Once the bonds were paid off, the tolls were supposed to be removed and of course, that never happened. Instead, the Turnpike Authority made a good effort to preserve their own existence by maintaining the pike to a level far beyond the other highways in the state. They also wasted a ton of money by hiring toll takers (typically friends and family of politicians or turnpike authority execs) for ridiculous salaries to do mindless jobs.

Then, of course, the Big Dig came and tolls were used to help fund that.

Now this politician wants to "start a conversation" (i.e. waste legislature time) to apply this wrong to the rest of the state. Great.

30

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j8j58z3 wrote

Probably worth also noting that in a few decades, I think there will be few non toll roads for highways.

Gas tax revenue is disappearing. We know that with 100% certainty. The cost of that has to be replaced somewhere

15

PabloX68 t1_j8j5ser wrote

Yes, if EV ownership increases significantly, tax revenue for road maintenance will need to be rethought somehow and maybe that means tolls. However, that's not going to help with local roads unless the toll taking technology changes substantially. In other words, fuel taxes affect people regardless of whether they use local roads or highways.

2

bostexa OP t1_j8j83qz wrote

San Diego was evaluating a per-mile tax for EVs (maybe all cars and get rid of the gas tax)

1

PabloX68 t1_j8j8fum wrote

I predict there will be some 4th Amendment concerns out of any of these schemes.

7

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j8j9b3v wrote

Depends really how it's implemented. But the writing is on the wall. In 50 years, either other taxes like income get increased to supplement car travel or there's going to be tolls/mileage taxes on highways and bridges.

I'd be OK with the former as long as we made public transportation 100% free.

7

Easy-Progress8252 t1_j8l5nyf wrote

That’s the thing, we need reliable public transport like most of Europe and Asia. More than happy to leave the car at home for everything except vacations and grocery trips.

1

IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8jbswz wrote

There is over 100 years of precedent giving the government incredible powers to regulate vehicular traffic, for reasons ranging from public safety to pollution. Zero chance of a 4th amendment challenge to any toll or tax.

2

PabloX68 t1_j8jlx37 wrote

Zero? Absolute statements when it comes to anything to do with the law are nearly always wrong.

If we end up with a toll system that tracks where a vehicle goes (which would be necessary for local road tolls), that'll have 4A implications. If we put trackers in cars for the same reason, that'll have 4A implications.

I note those examples because simple odometer readings as a method would also be challenged because much of that usage could be out of state.

1

gusterfell t1_j8jduma wrote

That depends. If it's based on odometer readings, then you're right. If it's based on making more/most roads into toll roads, then you've got a 4th Amendment case. There's no precedent for allowing the government to monitor where and when everyone is driving.

0

IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8je8cz wrote

Given that driving has repeatedly been held to be a privilege and not a right, I am not sure I would put much stock in that argument. Courts would almost surely hold that local and state governments have a legitimate interest in monitoring and tolling vehicles.

​

An odometer reading would be the most fair, indisputable, and easily implemented change though. That would have a nice effect of encouraging less sprawl.

​

Throw in a weight tax and I'd be happy.

5

PabloX68 t1_j8jm3y0 wrote

Odometer readings would be problematic because a lot of that mileage could be out of state, but you're quite right on local tolls.

2

lorcan-mt t1_j8jhhud wrote

Then flip it and use odometer readings to qualify for a vehicle tax credit.

1

wkomorow t1_j8jdoe4 wrote

From 1996-2013, those of us in the Eastern (edit Western) part of the state paid no tolls between what was exit 1 (West Stockbridge) and exit 6 (Chicopee). Good times.

8

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jhb2d wrote

The issue is that federal funding for maintenance just doesn’t keep pace. The tolls pay for that upkeep. And the enabling legislation that created MassDOT when the Turnpike Authority was done away with does not allow monies collected as tolls to be spent on anything other than the highways on which they were collected. With fewer federal dollars for roadways and many more drivers in the 58 years since the Pike was built, changing weather conditions, and new important federal regulations to manage stormwater (if you like having clean drinking water this is vital), it has not gotten cheaper to maintain the Pike or any other roadway. And the funds collected must go straight into maintain that roadway. I’m struggling to see why it bothers people. And if it does, are people willing to pay more federal and state taxes to maintain the worlds they use to get to work or move products?

5

WinsingtonIII t1_j8n2ap5 wrote

Right. Roads cost money. Is it really that crazy that funding their maintenance comes partially from charging a toll for people using those roads?

The money would just have to come from somewhere else if you got rid of the tolls, I don't see why people get so bent out of shape about it. If they'd prefer other forms of taxation play for the portion of road maintenance paid for by tolls, then fine, but I get the sense some of the people who complain about this stuff just want the government to magically pay for things without having the revenue to do so. State governments can't run a deficit the way the Feds can, so that's not an option.

2

PabloX68 t1_j8jle7r wrote

That all may be the case, but it's beside the point because it all happened after the situation I laid out.

−4

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jnvmm wrote

So changing realities in the world are besides the point because people made a decision 60 years ago? That doesn’t even make sense. Please explain to me how a decision 60 years ago make todays conditions besides the point. When you are complaining about todays conditions. Just saying it’s besides the point doesn’t make it so.

The bonds weren’t even paid off until 2017, AFTER MassDOT was created. That’s pretty damn current and relevant. 6 years of extra tolls for maintenance and improvements… I’d say that just like the precipitation data that’s over 60 years old being irrelevant to today, the reasons for the tolls having been started is what’s actually irrelevant, not the needs of maintaining it today.

And while you are explaining to me why I’m wrong and todays conditions are irrelevant, can you propose a better way to fund the maintenance? If all you are doing is just being mad about a 60 year old decision changing but you don’t have a better solution, then why are you complaining? You don’t have a preferred alternative. But if you do have a better alternative, please share it so it can be implemented

2

PabloX68 t1_j8ju44z wrote

And btw, submitting a bill "to start a conversation" is shitty. The legislature has enough to do without wasting time on that bs tactic. Lobby for your idea and get others on board, then submit a bill.

1

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jxjyn wrote

That’s not how bills work. They get discussed, debated, have modifications made, are analyzed in committee, revised again, and then they get voted on. How do you think you get people on board without having the specifics of the law written down?

3

PabloX68 t1_j8k2tk3 wrote

I know how bills work. Some are just grandstanding especially when the person sponsoring the bill says just that. Plenty of ridiculous bills are submitted at the state and federal level that the sponsors realize have no chance. They do it for publicity.

An actual bill doesn't need to be submitted to get people onboard with the idea. They're called cosponsors.

0

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k3fdk wrote

So which is this? Just for publicity and pointless or an actual problem where they want to make us pay tolls on more roads? Pick one. You are talking out both sides of your mouth. It’s either a problem or it’s not. It’s either a real stupid attempt or it’s fake and for publicity.

And you STILL haven’t given one single idea on how to fund the roadway maintenance better. Come on. Stop moving the goalposts and answer the one and only question asked of you.

What’s your solution?

1

PabloX68 t1_j8k4kxq wrote

The sponsor of the bill literally said it's to "start a conversation".

It's not incumbent on me to come up with a solution, though I gave you some in another post. As a taxpayer, it's incumbent on me to point out the state already wastes a shitload of money and produces a shitty product. Don't expect anyone to be onboard after looking at those numbers.

1

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4q8u wrote

That’s not true at all. It is not your job to point out that things are shitty and money was wasted when you don’t understand how much things cost and how to fund it. It means that you don’t understand any of the things you’re critiquing.

What is your solution? How are you going to fund the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of maintenance, or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of reconstruction?

1

PabloX68 t1_j8k4zyt wrote

I understand plenty and you're avoiding the comparisons I've made.

Why is per mile spending so damn high in MA already? Answer that in a cogent way and we can talk. Have you actually driven through NH? They rank mid pack out of all the states and their road quality is far better.

0

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k59tn wrote

Comparisons from different data sets are not relevant here. do me a favor, though, if you think they are, feel free to actually show me the numbers. Like I asked!

What is your solution? How are you going to fund the reconstruction or maintenance of many many many more miles of roadway in Massachusetts than in New Hampshire?

1

PabloX68 t1_j8k5mmm wrote

Here's another example.

https://reason.org/policy-study/26th-annual-highway-report/massachusetts/

And I said PER MILE road spending. Now you're pointing out that MA has "many many more". No shit.

1

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k61o1 wrote

Did you read my comment? Many more people. So many more drivers and much more wear & tear. Per mile is not the relevant statistic here. If you actually did this for a living you would know. I do.

1

PabloX68 t1_j8k8psq wrote

You engineer roads for a living? Do tell.

Sorry but the traffic levels don't change the instant you cross the border. Bring your Prius up to 80mph and drive that stretch I pointed to and tell me the MA part isn't worse.

0

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8ka5xd wrote

Lmao. I don’t drive a Prius, but you are showing your ass with that comment and your sources. Move to NH if you like it so much. It’s a much better place for libertarians who are so biased against the government that they can’t evaluate evidence appropriately.

And actually, I do plenty of work around roadways design, evaluation, permitting, maintenance, upgrades etc. You don’t have to engineer roads to know how the are funded and constructed. In fact, an engineer knows nothing about funding mechanisms. I do that exact work for a living. Yup. Did you think I would prove it and doxx myself? Lol

You are a walking Dunning Kruger effect.

I hope you get a chance to move to a place where you will be happier. I can’t waste any more time educating you when you don’t want to learn anything. Bye!

1

[deleted] t1_j8kay3c wrote

[removed]

0

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8kb554 wrote

Lol, sure thing. Bye!!

0

PabloX68 t1_j8kcqck wrote

If you can look at roads in MA and the money we spend on them and think it's all good, you've clearly been brainwashed.

Realize you doing a shitty job costs normal people money and puts them in danger. Sleep well.

0

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k6dx1 wrote

Oh! Another biased source! Reason.org is a libertarian think tank. That is not a reputable source. At all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(magazine)

1

PabloX68 t1_j8k88wy wrote

I know exactly who they are. That doesn't mean their numbers are wrong here. How about you find a source that says MA isn't among the least efficient, highest spenders here?

0

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k9eo5 wrote

That’s exactly what it means. Their analysis is biased.

1

PabloX68 t1_j8kct4e wrote

Link to another source that counters it. How hard is that?

0

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8kdemk wrote

Nope. You didn’t do your job first, I’m not obligated to engage with somebody who is calling me brainwashed. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😫 Bye!

1

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k5kpx wrote

Oh, and the flaw in your assumption is that spending per mile should be the same in states with VASTLY different populations, therefore roadway users, therefore vastly more wear & tear, and therefore more repair and maintenance costs

So, no. You don’t understand plenty.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_Effect_01.svg

1

PabloX68 t1_j8ka2ra wrote

There are plenty of other examples of more comparable states in those links. CT and RI both have similar population densities and similar weather yet spend about 1/3 less.

I never assumed it SHOULD be the same nor did I say that, speaking of Dunning Kruger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

0

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8kam3z wrote

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Stockholm syndrome and dunning Kruger? Oh my god.. you have no idea what you are linking to. You think I identify with my kidnappers? Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

And that source is not credible no matter how many times you pretend it is.

Bye!

1

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4toh wrote

And what numbers are these by the way? Where exactly is their money being wasted? Point to a specific project and how it could’ve been done equally as well for cheaper.

1

PabloX68 t1_j8k5766 wrote

I already gave you a link and I already gave you an example of a shitty result (Rt 3).

0

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k5wd5 wrote

No, you gave me an attorneys business website as a legitimate source for state spending. That’s not a reliable source.

1

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jp5ol wrote

You are also aware that the very reason MassDOT was created and created with that restriction on spending was because of the Big Dig, right? How is it besides the point that the laws have been changed after the Big Dig to prevent it from happening again? Today’s conditions were created as a direct result of prior mistakes. How is it besides the point that 20 years later we still need to maintain the highway even though we got rid of the ways that the state was allowed to take that toll money and pay for other projects? It’s the entire point. The state has done a bunch of things to reverse those bad decisions and we still need to pay for the mass pike. Give me a better way to pay for it and I’ll happily share it with the regional planners that work for the state that I know and work with myself.

2

PabloX68 t1_j8jtrzd wrote

No, the point was that the tolls on the MA Pike were supposed to be removed once the bonds for BUILDING THE MASS PIKE were paid. That never happened and the Turnpike Authority became forever until the legislature had a moment of clarity.

One way to pay for them is fuel taxes, realizing that may not work in the future but it does now. The other way to pay for them would be figuring out how it is per mile road spending in MA is so damn high even those the roads suck. Somehow there are plenty of other states that have both better roads and much less per mile spending. Do they have less density? Maybe but that doesn't explain all of it.

I'll point to the Rt 3 expansion between 128 and NH as a great example. At about the same time, NH expanded and reworked their section north of the border. Even when both sections were quite new, it was clear NH's was better. It was graded better (no undulations) and over the years, it's remained better. I travel that road all the time and the traffic and weather are similar. It's clear MA built their part to a lower standard and this was confirmed by civil eng I knew on the project.

So forgive me if I'm not just going to go along with spending more on roads in MA without question.

1

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8jxcv5 wrote

Your solution is to rely on taxes that already don’t cover it and will continue to decline? You are just complaining about the past without anything better to offer. You don’t get it.

The turnpike authority is gone. The ability to shunt funds to other projects is gone. Fuel tax revenues are down. Federal funding is down. Costs are up. Your criticisms of the past and other highways that have nothing to do with the Pike are irrelevant. Provide another way to fund the maintenance or don’t bother complaining. Bitching does nothing to fix anything. If you know how to do it better, tell us. I’ll share it with the planners, DOT staff, and political representatives I work with daily. Give me a better idea and we’ll push it. Otherwise, sit down. You have nothing to offer

2

PabloX68 t1_j8k42rl wrote

You can share this with the planners and DOT staff.

https://www.yourlawyer.com/library/highway-system-costs-per-state/

Share with them that they're consistently in the top five (if not top 3) per mile road spending and the roads are shit. Come up with a good reason for that and I'll be more supportive of alternative funding methods.

I already gave a better idea. Build the roads to a higher standard in the first place. Put a thicker road bed down and put thicker asphalt down. It'll lead to less potholes and less need to resurface every few years. It'll also lead to less damage to vehicles. Try spending less on public sector unions and you could also go look at what NH does. They have worse weather yet much better roads for a lot less money. Oh yeah, stop paying cops for road details and get rid of that prevailing wage farce.

Yes, bitching does do something. It translates to political support.

−1

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k47ck wrote

What is your solution to the problem now? How do you plan on funding reconstructing those highways better?

1

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4b0v wrote

By the way, that is not a reputable source for this conversation.

What is your solution? How are you going to achieve funding to reconstruct the roads?

1

MOGicantbewitty t1_j8k4g3d wrote

Again, what is your solution? You actually think getting rid of row details is going to pay for anything? Do you think there are hundreds of billions of dollars in route details and costs with unions in the state? That’s what it cost to rebuild these roadways

1

SileAnimus t1_j8m0y15 wrote

> would be figuring out how it is per mile road spending in MA is so damn high even those the roads suck

Because the asphalt is never cleaned and sealed. But to clean and seal the asphalt you need to close down each road for 2-5 days. Do you think we could pass that?

1

Prestigious_Bobcat29 t1_j8mho9z wrote

Fuel taxes only work if they’re high enough to cover the cost. You’re not paying for the roads you use, you’re being subsidized by the people who don’t drive

1

tenderooskies t1_j8kybvr wrote

have you ever been to texas? the toll roads are insane. it’s not a MA thing

2

IntelligentCicada363 t1_j8jbgqy wrote

Adding tolls to pay for maintenance would have benefits. Perhaps the biggest for highways would be that it would remove a lot of power the federal government has over the states.

The drinking age being 21 in every state is not even a "law" in the traditional sense. The federal government instead simply says that if it isn't 21, they will take away all of a state's highway funding. They do this for many things.

​

I also think that private passenger vehicles should pay the real cost to use the incredibly expensive and destructive infrastructure that highways are.

1

PabloX68 t1_j8jwmec wrote

Why shouldn't commercial trucks pay? The damage to the roads goes up exponentially with the weight each tire puts on that surface. Trucks do vastly more damage to road surfaces than passenger cars.

Weather also does a lot of damage, obviously. That can be mitigated to a substantial degree by building roads to a better standard. They do this in places like Japan and colder countries in Europe. They also do it in NH and the result is the road costs more up front, but long term maintenance costs (fixing potholes) are lower.

There's also NFW states won't chase those road dollars.

1

ohnoabigshark t1_j8mr2tx wrote

I don't know what work you do but being a toll taker is extremely hazardous to a person's health. If they could afford to keep the roads maintained "to a level far beyond other highways in the state" while also paying toll takers real money, I fail to see the problem.

0

PabloX68 t1_j8n4mg7 wrote

I already stated the problem. The turnpike authority purposefully spent all the money they had coming in so the authority would perpetuate, instead of paying down the bond which was the original intention.

As for toll taking being dangerous to health, it's no more so than being outside in a city or stuck in traffic.

1