Tolling Urban Freeways

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2424
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby EOst » July 21st, 2014, 1:51 pm

Progressive income taxes to fund transit are not only far less regressive on the poor, but far more sustainable in the long run. Yes, in NYC or Boston you can toll urban highways without a huge drag upon lower incomes, but that's because those cities already have robust mass transit systems.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby David Greene » July 21st, 2014, 1:54 pm

Progressive income taxes to fund transit are not only far less regressive on the poor, but far more sustainable in the long run.
I'd rather get something done now.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby mattaudio » July 21st, 2014, 1:55 pm

But why do you think we have a land use that sprawled away from transit? Probably because we have one of the highest per-capita miles of urban freeway. This is *why* we don't have a robust mass transit system.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2424
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby EOst » July 21st, 2014, 1:58 pm

I'd rather get something done now.
I think the odds of a progressive income tax for transit are about equal to the odds of tolling every highway lane, i.e. nil.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2424
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby EOst » July 21st, 2014, 2:01 pm

But why do you think we have a land use that sprawled away from transit? Probably because we have one of the highest per-capita miles of urban freeway. This is *why* we don't have a robust mass transit system.
No, that's not the cause, that's a symptom of the larger problem. Cities with robust mass transit systems (NY, Boston, DC, SF, etc) had density long before they built their transit systems. MSP isn't low-density because it doesn't have transit, it doesn't have transit because it's never had the existing density to justify it (and arguably still doesn't--we're gambling, I think correctly, on heavy densification over the next few decades with these new lines). Roads and highways have subsequently created a vicious cycle of increasingly lower density, it's true, but they're a symptom of the initial problem.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby mattaudio » July 21st, 2014, 2:17 pm

Urban freeways resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of housing units in the core cities and the loss of nearly two hundred thousand residents.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2424
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby EOst » July 21st, 2014, 2:51 pm

Urban freeways resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of housing units in the core cities and the loss of nearly two hundred thousand residents.
The densest census tract in Minneapolis (Stevens Square) is still significantly less dense than the mean tract in NYC despite maintaining the vast majority of its original housing stock and having several tall housing projects added. Minneapolis has never been very dense; freeways have exacerbated the problem, but they are not its source.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby MNdible » July 21st, 2014, 3:18 pm

Urban freeways resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of housing units in the core cities and the loss of nearly two hundred thousand residents.
Correlation does not imply causation. We've been over this before, but the vast vast vast percentage of Minneapolis's population drop is related to a decrease in household size, which has very little to do with freeways.

Suburban Outcast
Landmark Center
Posts: 229
Joined: June 10th, 2012, 8:33 pm

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby Suburban Outcast » July 21st, 2014, 4:41 pm

I think having MNPass lanes should be used in lieu of general purpose lane expansions, but I'd rather see highway funds go towards upgrading cloverleaf or older interchanges to have more and more practical space for merging rather than any lane expansions. I feel that much of the traffic jams I get in during rush hour are mostly due to driver error from merging (I never get why people are entering the freeway at 40 when everyone else is going 55-60), accidents blocking lanes, and crappy interchange designs. Adding lanes regardless of tolls or not does not solve the merging problems in my opinion. Plus having too many lanes makes it more difficult for MNPass drivers to switch over to (typically) right-hand exit off the other highway/freeways anyways.

Even on 36 or 35E, the slowdowns usually happen near Snelling Ave/36 and 35E/36 because of that cloverleaf when I am driving. I feel that Roseville in general has way too many exits as well, so getting rid of tight-turned exits like Hamline could be beneficial. I've always wanted to see Snelling's exit be rebuilt into a SPUI along with then a multi-use path nearby with a bridge across 36 connecting the HarMar area with Rosedale. Then 36 could have a MNPass lane from 35E to 35W's future MNPass lane.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby David Greene » July 21st, 2014, 7:15 pm

I'd rather get something done now.
I think the odds of a progressive income tax for transit are about equal to the odds of tolling every highway lane, i.e. nil.
I was responding to the idea of a progressive income tax for transit. I know that general tolling is not going anywhere any time soon. We can get a sales tax for transit, though. We've done it before.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2424
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby EOst » July 21st, 2014, 7:35 pm

A sales tax is even more regressive than tolling, though.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby David Greene » July 21st, 2014, 8:00 pm

A sales tax is even more regressive than tolling, though.
Not when it goes to provide more transit service and keep fares low(-ish).

To make the sales tax more progressive, we should tax clothing and services. The rich pay far more for these than the poor.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2424
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby EOst » July 21st, 2014, 8:21 pm

Not when it goes to provide more transit service and keep fares low(-ish).
It's still regressive, it just makes us feel better about it being regressive.
To make the sales tax more progressive, we should tax clothing and services. The rich pay far more for these than the poor.
All true.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby David Greene » July 21st, 2014, 8:23 pm

Not when it goes to provide more transit service and keep fares low(-ish).
It's still regressive, it just makes us feel better about it being regressive.
It's much less regressive than cutting bus service. Like I said, I'd rather avoid that now than be pure and not support that "evil regressive tax," screwing over transit-dependent people in the process.

grant1simons2
IDS Center
Posts: 4371
Joined: February 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm
Location: Marcy-Holmes

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby grant1simons2 » July 21st, 2014, 9:41 pm

I really don't want to end up like the eastern states with toll rodes everywhere

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4617
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby David Greene » July 21st, 2014, 10:27 pm

We're going to see more tolling, there's no doubt. More MnPASS lanes are in our future.

Let's push the envelope. If we went full-in on tolling, what would be the best way to do it to imrpvoe the sustainability of our region? I'll throw out a strawman to start discussion.

1. All freeway lanes outside Minneapolis and St. Paul are tolled and dynamically priced
2. One MnPASS lane in each direction on 94/35W/35E in Minneapolis and St. Paul
3. All tractor-trailers must pay tolls on freeways everywhere

#3 is there to prevent trucks cutting through the cities to avoid tolls. In addition, we could make the city tolls higher for tractor-trailers to encourage use of the bypass. I recognize that there's a cost-of-goods/business climate tradeoff here for the cities.

My completelty unsupported theory is that with a scheme like this people may consider living and/or working in the cities more desirable. Of course those living in the further-out suburbs may stay away from the cities more in order to avoid the freeways.

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 711
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby ECtransplant » July 22nd, 2014, 1:31 am

I really don't want to end up like the eastern states with toll rodes everywhere
You don't have to pay any tolls if you don't drive

froggie
Rice Park
Posts: 418
Joined: March 7th, 2014, 6:52 pm

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby froggie » July 22nd, 2014, 5:26 am

3. All tractor-trailers must pay tolls on freeways everywhere
I don't see this one flying. The Twin Cities is a *HUGE* trucking hub with thousands of jobs directly tied to the trucking industry. While I'll be the first to agree that trucks should be paying more (due to the damage they cause to roads relative to that caused by cars), the political and economic reality would most likely preclude trucks "paying tolls on freeways everywhere".

go4guy
Foshay Tower
Posts: 921
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 8:54 am

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby go4guy » July 22nd, 2014, 6:38 am

So if we start tolling all the roads, then do they cut the gas tax? It has to even out some how. You dont just toll roads because your personal opinion doesn't want people driving.

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 711
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: Tolling Urban Freeways

Postby ECtransplant » July 22nd, 2014, 6:58 am

It has to even out some how.
No, it doesn't.
You dont just toll roads because your personal opinion doesn't want people driving.
You're right. You toll roads because sprawled infrastructure is not sustainable and because cars are harmful to the environment and public health.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 55 guests