Speed limits & revenue

[scombrid]

They don't want to move people off the local road they want the money from the toll.

Have you ever been in OBX traffic on old 168?

Chesapeake wants OBX traffic off of the local road.

 

[Rhea]

We don't have enough traffic to justify that. But we do have enough to justify painted crosswalks. Never hear of a cop trying to bag anyone at one, though.

 

[scombrid]

If you want to move people off the local road and on to the expressway, put the toll on the local road!

In this particular case, this action would put the cost burden of paying for the toll road on residents of Chesapeake while the benefit of the toll road would go almost exclusively to the residents of the DC-BaltiDelphia who use the toll road to get to OBX, NC as well as the people in NC that rent vacation properties to those people.

Raleigh spent the money to 4-lane the road in NC as part of its eastern North Carolina economic development initiative. Currituck Co residents didn't have to shell out to pay for the road. Virginia DOT refused to spend the money on old 168 to benefit tourism in North Carolina so the City of Chesapeake has had to deal with massive traffic headaches. The only way for Chesapeake to get a highway connecting I-64 to the NC state line to service out of town through traffic is to put a toll on it or make the residents pay for it. I know that my family in Chesapeake supports the toll road, though they'd rather have had VDOT kick in the money like Raleigh did for NC 168.

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't deny the obvious fact that traffic regulations, including speed limits are sometimes manipulated and varied for the sole purpose of raising revenue, even at the expense of reduced safety. That said, I see no smoking gun here, and they mayor claims it was to reduce traffic on the local road, not to raise revenue. Many of the comments are just silly denials of things the government should reasonably do.

Toll roads make perfect sense. Expressways are primarily for the benefit of non-local commuters to quickly travel past local areas. They are costly and people vary massively in how much they use, benefit, and profit from them. Tolls are reasonable way to covary the financial costs with their actual use. The non-toll road in question is not an expressway. It is a local road designed for people to access the countless local businesses, schools, and residences on it and other local roads that intersect it. Every vehicle on such a local road increases the odds a an accident notably moreso than if it were travelling of an expressway that does not have entry and exit ways to and from it every 50 feet. It is highly likely that traffic on this road has been increasing, which inherently means more accidents, and all relevant stats and common sense says that shifting more of the non-local traffic to the toll road will reduce accidents. Besides, it is also perfectly reasonable for the local community to want to reduce congestion they have to deal with from non-locals trying to cut through their town as quickly as possible.

The only potentially legit complaint I can see here would be the excessive amount of the toll, and its revenue is excessive and being used to fund other things besides the expressway itself.

 

[bilby]

Really? Do police set speed limits in the US? That's fucked.

Over here, speed limits are set by the government; police merely enforce the limits as gazetted and signposted.

The government sets speed limits with revenue in mind.


Yours does similar things, also--you have a contract with a private party over some toll road (a tunnel, perhaps? I don't recall) that specifically says the state can't do anything that cuts the traffic using it.

Not mine - I think you are thinking of the notoriously corrupt New South Wales government's dodgy deal over the Lane Cove Tunnel. There is a reason I chose not to live in NSW.

Still, that's not about speeding fines; they reduced the number of lanes on the alternate route via Epping Road.

 

[bilby]

Toll roads make no sense at all.

The entire nation benefits from having good roads - even people who don't drive on the roads benefit from the activities of those who do.

The exact benefit of a new road to a given individual is very hard to determine, but the approximation that the user benefits enough that he should pay the whole cost is a very poor one.

Averaging over all new roads in the country, the people who gain most from the infrastructure are those with the highest incomes. So the appropriate way to pay for new roads is through income tax.

 

[Bronzeage]

Toll roads make no sense at all.

The entire nation benefits from having good roads - even people who don't drive on the roads benefit from the activities of those who do.

The exact benefit of a new road to a given individual is very hard to determine, but the approximation that the user benefits enough that he should pay the whole cost is a very poor one.

Averaging over all new roads in the country, the people who gain most from the infrastructure are those with the highest incomes. So the appropriate way to pay for new roads is through income tax.

In any US jurisdiction, where a toll road or bridge is built, the tolls do not come close to paying for the bridge. The usual financial set up is to set toll prices to cover the interest on the bonds which were sold to raise money for the project. Toll roads and bridges are usually located to have benefit to the local area.

It would be better to have all infrastructure fully financed from a general fund, but when a local government wants a special project and is willing to pay for it, There can be little objection to it.

One of the problems of a toll bridge or road is the cost of collecting tolls. That is a fixed cost, without regard to actual toll collection.

 

[Metaphor]

Don't you love the 100% ass-backwards inducement structure?

If you want to move people off the local road and on to the expressway, put the toll on the local road!

You realize how much that'd cost?

Politically? A fortune. Technologically? Much less than the tollbooth they put on the expressway.

 

[ronburgundy]

Toll roads make no sense at all.

The entire nation benefits from having good roads - even people who don't drive on the roads benefit from the activities of those who do.

The exact benefit of a new road to a given individual is very hard to determine, but the approximation that the user benefits enough that he should pay the whole cost is a very poor one.

Tolls don't need to and probably rarely do cover the total cost of a road. Thus, all taxpayers do pay for such roads, tolls just vary that payment in the same direction as the benefits vary. The one thing for certain is that users of a road benefit more than non-users. Thus, tolls are by far more reasonable and fair than forcing everyone to pay equally.

 

[ronburgundy]

Toll roads make no sense at all.

The entire nation benefits from having good roads - even people who don't drive on the roads benefit from the activities of those who do.

The exact benefit of a new road to a given individual is very hard to determine, but the approximation that the user benefits enough that he should pay the whole cost is a very poor one.

Tolls don't need to and probably rarely do cover the total cost of a road. Thus, all taxpayers do pay for such roads, tolls just vary that payment in the same direction as the benefits vary. The one thing for certain is that users of a road benefit more than non-users. Thus, tolls are by far more reasonable and fair than forcing everyone to pay equally.

Oh, and while non-users get some indirect benefit from roads, not only do they pay part of the tolls via the costs passed on into the consumed products that rely on the roads, but non-users are also harmed by road users, via their pollution (both gas use and the massive amount caused by road construction and maintenance).

A far better case could be made for massive increase in funding public transport where the users have to pay nothing directly, than for roads where the users have to pay nothing directly (e.g., non toll roads).

 

[fromderinside]

Just as I thought. History, people, history.

Road Traffic History - Before the Streets Got Swamped http://www.autoevolution.com/news/road-traffic-history-before-the-streets-got-swamped-12954.html

The original highways speed laws were installed to limit social concern over vehicles on roadways. Those vehicles were called land trains. Steam powered, fed by coal, these two and three operator things weighed up to 20 tons and sounded awful as they chugged along. People were afraid. So speeds were limited to 10 mph in England in 1861. Soon followed were three person operator requirements, the most socially significant was the flagman requirement to force them moving at walking speeds by having this flagman go in front of the vehicle signalling it was coming.

I expect more hassling came of the competition between horse and automobile as one slowly gave way to the other. Some towns required sweepers others required horns, turn signals, and signs limiting one or the other. And so it continues today.

Its never been about social order. Its always been about social fashion. As electrics gain traction, their batteries exceed normal gas tank average range (350 miles thereabouts), laws will trend toward laws favoring them over big oil's little driving drug. Count on it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The government sets speed limits with revenue in mind.


Yours does similar things, also--you have a contract with a private party over some toll road (a tunnel, perhaps? I don't recall) that specifically says the state can't do anything that cuts the traffic using it.

Not mine - I think you are thinking of the notoriously corrupt New South Wales government's dodgy deal over the Lane Cove Tunnel. There is a reason I chose not to live in NSW.

Still, that's not about speeding fines; they reduced the number of lanes on the alternate route via Epping Road.

I meant "you" as "Australia", not any specific local government.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The government sets speed limits with revenue in mind.

So when Akron up'd the speed limit on a major local road from 25 to 35, the did it on a revenue basis? And when Ohio increased the speed limit on the Interstates to 70 from 65, they did so on a revenue basis?

 

[ZiprHead]

We don't have enough traffic to justify that. But we do have enough to justify painted crosswalks. Never hear of a cop trying to bag anyone at one, though.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/L-9aS5AmrUQ[/YOUTUBE]

 

[thatsneakyguy]

I have traveled on this very road many times.
Many people from VA/DC/MD area travel to the Outer Banks (OBX) for vacation every year and drive through this part of Virginia. The old 168 road was one of the few ways to get to the OBX. The road goes through a very rural area, a lot of farms are there. Over the years the OBX has gotten more popular and the traffic on the old 168 road increased. Before the expressway opened the old 168 was overwhelmed with traffic on the weekends. The traffic was causing a problem for the local Virginia residents and Virginia was not benefiting too much from the travelers – most people are headed to the OBX which is in North Carolina.

The expressway has helped alleviate traffic on 168, but the only portion of the expressway that is actually tolled is actually just 6.5 miles (I mapped it). So it’s $6 for 6.5 miles of expressway, and you have to pay both coming and going. Plus the last exit before the toll is filled with rest stops – fast food, retail stores, and a gas station. When the expressway was first built there weren’t many stores on that exit, but since then that little area has greatly developed. In a way it seems like travelers are being encouraged to avoid the toll. First they put gas stations and fast food on the exit for the old 168, and then they increase the toll on the expressway.

Many people take the old 168 vs. the expressway because they would rather spend the $6 in gas or food. Also, taking the old 168 (for the 6.5 miles) vs. the expressway only adds a few minutes to a long trip that is already taking several hours. I don’t think lowering the speed limit to 45 is going to change many people’s minds. I know I will probably still take the old 168.

I’ve never seen that many people walking along the old 168. It’s rural; unlike a city with a large population of people coming and going to different places. There is a school along there but I figured most kids are taking the bus because there aren’t that many houses nearby to walk to.

As for the toll itself, I assumed it was used to pay for the building of the road. After the costs of the expressway construction are recouped, will the toll be lowered? I doubt it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

So, who invented the first speed trap?

 

[ZiprHead]

Wyle E. Coyote. It was ineffective.