Letter- Who Benefits from HOT Lanes
Printed From: Slug-Lines.com
Category: Archived Slugging Topics
Forum Name: HOT Lanes Discussion
Forum Description: Post messages regarding High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes here.
URL: http://www.slug-lines.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3122
Printed Date: 27 Apr 2024 at 2:01pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Letter- Who Benefits from HOT Lanes
Posted By: Bob
Subject: Letter- Who Benefits from HOT Lanes
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2007 at 3:31pm
Good letter from someone in Fredericksburg paper:
Bob
Just who benefits from HOT lanes?
January 31, 2007 12:50 am
Just who benefits from HOT lanes?
After I read last Tuesday's Free Lance-Star article on HOV/HOT lanes, I am at a loss about who will benefit from this initiative [Toll lanes may come quicker, Jan. 23].
The initiative was described as a "public-private" partnership, but there is no information regarding how much of the $913 million (2003 estimate) our tax dollars will cover.
If it is like sports stadiums and other such projects, the taxpayers will pay most of the costs.
Now who will benefit? Based on the numbers in the article, a one-way fare between Massaponax and Arlington would be $15.12. That is $151.20 weekly and $7,257.60 annually (considering a 48-week work year), not including gas and vehicle maintenance.
Compare that with the cost of a commuter bus ride of $18 per day, for an annual cost of $4,320 for the same 48 weeks.
I don't see these numbers being much help to low- and middle-income Interstate 95 travelers.
Here's how I see it. The average commuter on the HOV/HOT lanes will have to endure frequent delays and inconveniences during construction, put up with more single-occupant Mercedes and BMWs (who else can pay more than $7,000 annually to commute?), and pay more taxes, while Fluor Virginia and Transurban USA get wealthier, and upper-income commuters avoid the traffic at our expense.
Our lawmakers must do a better job of explaining the benefits for the average commuter, if there are any, or pass up this option and spend our hard-earned tax dollars on highway projects that will benefit all of us.
|
Replies:
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2007 at 8:14am
|
I totally agree, but think it will be even worse. It's somewhat good to see that someone else is pointing out that there will be big pains in commuting just during the time of installing new ramps and booths. I Wonder how hard it would be to convert an enlarged shoulder on 95/395 to an extra lane for peak hours like what's done on i66 instead. Surely that would be a cheaper option and open up more road space.
|
Posted By: Luddite
Date Posted: 03 Feb 2007 at 8:40am
I'm always stunned that people still don't get it. We live in a capitalistic democratic republic. Fluor stands to make huge profits by orchestrating this deal which will drag out for years and years. They spend huge amounts of money on lobbying politicians through various pacs, fronts, backroom deals, etc. An idea doesn't have to be good for the people. An idea has to have a payout. Politicians, once they leave office, always have a cushy place to land after the public job. Get it? Its not really about efficiency. Its about profitability. Exactly like the hybrid scam. Its nothing new that those making the rules have a financial stake. Sheesh. How else can I say it?
I asked one of my reps once if they were ever approached by the hybrid lobby. He told me no one ever lobbied him. I believed him-still do. Later, after I had a chance to think about it, (I'm sort of slow on the uptake), I realized the lobbyists got to his people or his pac or his wife. Slippery folks these pols. all dressed up in the flag.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2007 at 7:40am
Your representative may have also:
- voted with his conscience, realizing that promoting SULEV without spending taxpayer funds was a good thing
- voted with his party, realizing that those wiser than he would help him on issue in which he was better informed
It's quite probable that support for improving the environment isn't about hybrid lobbyist, but about saving the world.
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2007 at 8:03am
|
How do building toll booths help the environment?
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2007 at 11:22am
quote:
Originally posted by darkprime
[br]How do building toll booths help the environment?
dark, once again, read before you write. Please look at Luddite's second paragraph.
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2007 at 12:40pm
|
NoSUV, whether or not you meant it, what you wrote implied that helping the environment and tolls (what this thread is about, or did you forget that because you only seem to chime in whenever someone says something about about your precious hybrid exemptions) somehow go together. Please think before you write as you waste so many people's time with your nonsense garbage.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2007 at 12:47pm
dark, again, read Luddite's second paragraph and my response. As you so clearly articulate, that paragraph has little to do with this thread.
Please write something useful - I know it's a new concept for you, but I'm sure many are hopeful that you eventually will.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2007 at 1:39pm
It's interesting that, independent of this forum, someone in F'burg makes a good argument and came up with some very good questions regarding the lunacy of HOT lanes.
Some nuggets of brilliance:
"...there is no information regarding how much of the $913 million (2003 estimate) our tax dollars will cover." "...the taxpayers will pay most of the costs."
"I don't see these numbers (HOT fares) being much help to low- and middle-income Interstate 95 travelers."
And finally, "The average commuter on the HOV/HOT lanes will have to endure frequent delays and inconveniences during construction, put up with more single-occupant Mercedes and BMWs (who else can pay more than $7,000 annually to commute?), and pay more taxes, while Fluor Virginia and Transurban USA get wealthier, and upper-income commuters avoid the traffic at our expense."
It seems to me that many other people may feel the same way and have the same questions. This is a good thing! People generally don't like being taken advantage of, and that is what this boondoggle is; a scam by VDOT to avoid the fiscal responsibility of highway maintenance made possible by our elected officials.
It also makes sense that the likes of NoSUV would support such a crime against average Joe the taxpayer. However, it is unfortunate that NoSUV is not as convincing as this neutral F'burg commuter. Contradiction doen not an argument make, NoSUV.
How exactly does a toll road promote SULEV vehicles, let alone an ecological initiative?
How does blindly voting with your party make you anything more than a sheep being lead to the slaughter?
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2007 at 2:30pm
|
NoSUV, why don't you keep your retarded comments to yourself and off of this site. You have no apparent interest in supporting the slugging community and simply troll these boards. Haven't you read all the posts from people complaining how moronic virtually all your posts are? Take a long look into the mirror (if you haven't broken it already) and try to see yourself as everyone else does here.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2007 at 3:08pm
quote:
Originally posted by darkprime
[br]NoSUV, why don't you keep your retarded comments to yourself and off of this site. You have no apparent interest in supporting the slugging community and simply troll these boards. Haven't you read all the posts from people complaining how moronic virtually all your posts are? Take a long look into the mirror (if you haven't broken it already) and try to see yourself as everyone else does here.
Sticks and stones. Sorry that you are so very challenged.
Have you only just now realized the paragraph you missed earlier and are trying to divert attention from your obvious mistake?
dark, I'm not angry or upset with you - I pity you.
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2007 at 3:22pm
|
I read it multiple times. You are the one who is diverting from my question on how hot lanes (specifically toll booths) benefit the environment. If it doesn't in your opinion, then say so, instead you just ignore it. Why don't you answer the question? If you think I'm so vastly inferior to you that it sickens your stomach, then why don't you explain what it is you think i'm missing in terms that any toddler could understand.
|
Posted By: sluDgE
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2007 at 9:18am
|
FWIW & IMHO ... modern science can fix many things, but in NoSUV's case modern science just can't fix stupid. [;)]
|
Posted By: SpongeBob
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2007 at 9:32am
Sheez, someone get a bucket of water and throw it on these folks!
Without NoSUV, how much less exciting would our board be? He is the cinnamon in our latte, the chipotle in our salsa, the sharp pointy object in our muffin, and the swift kick in the shin that makes all our days brighter!
That he is inconsistent, that his arguments are circular, that he is selfish, proud, and smelly -- these things we all know and love about dear NoSUV.
Save your breath.
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 06 Feb 2007 at 10:07am
|
I thought the VA state legislature played the role of our villian; things just don't work out that well with too many villians.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2007 at 10:12am
In order to both help solve the (relatively) short term problem of regional transportation as well as the longer term environmental problem of global warming, 2 initiatives need to happen, and fairly quickly.
1. Better use needs to be made of mass transit. Since folks using the slug system are going from one point to another over a relatively long distance, it is ideal for them to use mass transit instead of carpools. Because they refuse to pay for their rides, the only way to provide the incentive for them to take mass transit is to either legislate it by banning them by eliminating carpools (except SULEV, point 2) or making it more expensive to carpool than to take mass transit. That means that either mass transit needs to be less than free (what slugs currently pay) or charges need to be made on carpools so that the individual cost is above that of the mass transit. Toll booths seem to be the best solution since they also have the potential to raise revenue, which could be used for mass transit system subsidies.
2. Non-taxpayer incentives are needed to encourage consumers to purchase only SULEV vehicles. Although having every vehicle in the region may not make a significant difference in curbing the predicted environmental changes, a lot of little differences add up. Back when the hybrid exemption was unlimited, the news media reported purchases of hybrids in the region were far higher than the national average. No reports have been forthcoming since the law change last year, so one can only assume that the sales figures are no longer news worthy. You don't need subsidies to modify consumer choices - so our taxes do not necessarily need to be used to encourage consumers to make environmentally sound purchasing decisions.
These 2 points support the conclusion that either toll roads are needed with hybrid exclusion, or legislation is needed to change the express lanes from High Occupancy Vehicle to Mass Transit and SULEV Only Vehicle.
|
Posted By: sluDgE
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2007 at 6:46am
|
BUMPing up above the spam! [;)]
|
Posted By: DC2RV
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2007 at 5:05pm
|
I'll see that bump and bump again.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2007 at 10:16am
Some obvious replies to NoSUVs satatements:
"Better use needs to be made of mass transit." Anyone who actually rides the metro would know that the trains are elbow-to-elbow, standing-room-only during morning and evening rush hours. This reveals that NoSUV does not practice what NoSUV preaches. But since you bring it up, why would anyone subject themselves to that kind of torture; longer commutes (1 hour + vs. 30-45 min. slugrides), high costs ($11.45 daily rndtrp./parking vs. free slugging), not to mention the inconvenient, crowded, dirty conditions on the trains. NoSUV obviously has already made that decision and does not ride metro.
"Toll booths seem to be the best solution..., to raise revenue, which could be used for mass transit system subsidies." "Could" is the operative word here. Since the "revenue" will be managed by a private firm, tollpayers will have no control over how much of those revenues ever reach the blacktop or the transit system. Remember, private firms #1 goal is to make a profit; why would they want to subsidize anything that competes with their cash cow? This is half-baked, NoSUV. I expect more from you!
"Non-taxpayer incentives are needed to encourage consumers to purchase only SULEV vehicles." While I agree with you in theory, it is not realistic in practice. And hybrid tax breaks are not "Non-taxpayer incentives." Anytime one person receives a tax exemption, another must pay more to make up the deficit. Toll roads are also not the answer, for a different set of reasons. So what is the answer? The best of the worst case solutions is a higher statewide gas tax. This will put the financial responsibility for transportation on the shoulders of users.
Finally, "taxes do not necessarily need to be used to encourage consumers to make environmentally sound purchasing decisions." This couldn't be further from the truth! User based taxes are a great incentive to change behaviors, and they effectively motivate the intended target audience. In this example, a statewide gas tax would target local and pass through drivers, the users of VA interstate highways. Local users will be motivated by higher fuel charges to purchase more fuel effecient vehicles, which also happen to be lower emission vehicles.
Thanks for the chance to make the argument AGAINST toll roads and hybrid only express lanes.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2007 at 11:15am
raymond - good grief what an idiodic posting!
On your moronic post about metro, please pretend that you've heard of supply and demand. Assuming you have, what happens, raymond, when demand increases? Could it be that, perhaps, supply will increase to meet the demand? Of course, you could argue stupidly that the costs will go up to discriminate against that demand, but come on - pretend you have a brain.
Toll booths do not have to be run by private firms. Or, in your world, is that the only option?
I never said tax breaks. What part of reading comprehension don't you get? Did you pass high school English?
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2007 at 11:43am
Oh my, when beaten by logic you resort to insults. What should I expect? Your contridictions have offered nothing that disputes the logic and reason in my arguments.
"...supply will increase to meet the demand..." Once again, accurate theory run amok! Metro has a finite number of railcars(which, BTW, are inadequate even at toady's volume), and they have finite budget to expand their services (which, BTW they cannot manage well enough to make ends meet) so how exactly will they accomodate the flood of volume in your fantasy-land solutions?
"Toll booths do not have to be run by private firms." You should pull your head out of your hybrid tailpipe long enough to read some of the posts in this forum and see that a private firm WILL run the toll booths. Ummm, BTW that IS the discussion here.
"I never said tax breaks." Well, not in those words. But what do you call that little deduction on your tax form under "hybrid tax exemption"? Most GAAP certified accountants would call that a tax break. Once again, a fantasy interpretation.
Care to try again?
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2007 at 11:56am
"...supply will increase to meet the demand..."
I have ridden metro for the past 3 years and supply has not increased to meet demand. If it has, why is metro still toying with the idea of removing more and more seats from metro cars to pack riders (I mean customers) tighter than they are now? During rush hour, there is definately not the supply that riders would like. And yes, as supply somehow does increase on metro (i.e. more and longer trains), so does the fare increase. When was the last time you used mass transit for a full week?
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2007 at 12:49pm
quote:
Originally posted by raymond
[br] Metro has a finite number of railcars(which, BTW, are inadequate even at toady's volume), and they have finite budget to expand their services (which, BTW they cannot manage well enough to make ends meet)
Finite? Wow, that's a pretty stupid thing to post. Unless you are kidding, but I don't see the humor.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2007 at 12:51pm
quote:
Originally posted by raymond
[br]
"I never said tax breaks." Well, not in those words. But what do you call that little deduction on your tax form under "hybrid tax exemption"? Most GAAP certified accountants would call that a tax break. Once again, a fantasy interpretation.
Try taking a reading class. Maybe if I type it more slowly. Please find ANY post where I advocated tax breaks for hybrid purchases.
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2007 at 1:22pm
NoSUV, maybe this will help you:
Taken from http://content.wmata.com/board_gm/board_docs/030206_SemiAnnualRptonRailcarPrograms030206.pdf (see slide 4), Metro currently has approximately 952 Railcars spread out over all its lines and railyards.
Taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/finite :
fi·nite
–adjective
1. having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
2. Mathematics. a. (of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted.
b. not infinite or infinitesimal.
c. not zero.
3. subject to limitations or conditions, as of space, time, circumstances, or the laws of nature: man's finite existence on earth.
–noun 4. something that is finite.
Using the above definition, I do believe 952 is finite.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 12 Feb 2007 at 4:18pm
|
So, you are saying that it can never, ever be 953?
|
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2007 at 7:59am
Va. could charge tolls on interstate
By LILLIAN KAFKA
lkafka@potomacnews.com
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Virginia could be in a stronger position to begin charging tolls on interstates if a measure proposed by Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Dale City, continues to move forward in the General Assembly.
Lingamfelter's toll bill has already received approval from the House of Delegates, and on Monday the Senate Transportation Committee also gave it an OK.
"This says to the federal government, 'we are serious about looking at alternatives so when you have a new project, you can also consider tolling,' " Lingamfelter said. "It decreases the burden on the shoulders of hardworking Virginians."
Tolls capture revenue from out of state travelers, and now would be the time to cash in, he said.
The money - up to $250 million annually if 12 tolls were built - would only be spent on projects to relieve congestion on the interstate where the toll is located, said John G. "Chip" Dicks, a former delegate and lobbyist for the Virginia Association of Realtors.
Dicks said last year leaders in the General Assembly asked the association to come up with ideas for transportation solutions and this was one of them.
When Dicks was in elected office in the 1980s, he worked to broker a deal to install tolls on Interstate 95 in Richmond to connect regional highways and build a bridge using revenues from the 25-cent toll, he said.
Dicks said these type of tolls don't require congressional approval and would pay for widening the interstate, improving interchanges and reducing congestion on adjacent feeder roads.
Two Northern Virginia senators were at first wary of the idea for fears that tolls would be placed on the Capital Beltway and Interstate 66.
Charging commuters going to Washington, D.C., or Maryland a daily toll could be "brutal," said Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, R-Vienna.
But those interstates could not be considered under this measure because there are already talks of charging tolls on those roads, said Barbara Reese, chief financial officer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Plans are under way to build High Occupancy Toll lanes on Interstates 95, 395 and 495. Another study is under way to determine if congestion tolls would benefit traffic flow on I-66, Reese said.
Lingamfelter's bill would require high-speed toll collection technology, such as Smart Tag and E-ZPass, to prevent additional gridlock on already jammed roads, Lingamfelter said.
He said his proposal sends a clear message to the Federal Highway Administration that Virginia leaders are interested in charging tolls on interstates in order to raise money for congestion relief projects.
The FHA makes the final determination over toll facilities on interstates and has a number of programs that Virginia could apply for if this legislation is passed, Dicks said.
This story can be found at: http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN%2FMGArticle%2FMJM_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193169931&path=!news
Go Back
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2007 at 10:01am
|
So the key here is that they give their blessing for tolls to be looked at but do not agree to implement them now.
|
Posted By: SpongeBob
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2007 at 10:40am
Funny how they worry about charging tolls on I-66 because it would harm commuters, but have absolutely no problem with charging tolls on I95.
Is Lingamfelter so against his Dale City constituents that he WANTS to see them get charged for commuting? Corey needs to call and talk to his fellow Republican.
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2007 at 11:35am
|
Maybe Lingamfelter wants to be voted out? I know I sure am voting against him now.
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2007 at 11:48am
quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]So, you are saying that it can never, ever be 953?
How about taking some reading comprehension classes? You tell everyone else to take them, surely you should know enough about them to choose a good one for yourself.
Metro is in the process of adding more cars to the fleet, but at the earliest it will be at the end of this year. With the safety issues of a particular line of cars over the past couple years, there's no telling how many metro will decommission. In the end, there will be a net increase, but more than likely not nearly enough to support all the riders.
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2007 at 2:19pm
Now, dark, please try not to post such ignorant drivel. The quote dealing with finite and number of metro cars deals with the assertation by raymond that supply and demand won't work because the the metro capacity is finite.
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2007 at 3:12pm
|
And supply and demand hasn't worked with metro railcars. They are actually down to fewer than 952 cars now if you account for the recent accidents. I don't know how many that is, but it's something. And yes, their capacity for total railcars in use is finite now anyways, limited moreso by how much electrical current they can run through the powered rail. As it stands today, their capacity is FINITE and will never be INFINITE, but their finite value of capacity can grow but hasn't for several years. That's what raymound was getting towards.
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2007 at 3:13pm
|
Oh, and one more question for you NoSUV, who on these boards routintely posts anything worthwhile in your opinion? You've made it quite clear that I don't, and it seems you feel Bob's and Spongebob's posts are useless, maybe Jody as well. So who if anyone has any worthwhile posts in your opinion?
|
Posted By: Bob
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2007 at 8:14am
Posted By: Jody
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2007 at 11:15am
|
Hi darkprime. I knew after reading NoSUV's response to one of my posts it is best to sum it up that NoSUV and I agree to disagree. NoSUV should start his own message board. His propaganda is not being bought here.
|
Posted By: darkprime
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2007 at 1:10pm
|
And yet again he hasn't bothered to answer the question. I should update that post with more people he fights with.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2007 at 2:02pm
quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]Now, dark, please try not to post such ignorant drivel. The quote dealing with finite and number of metro cars deals with the assertation by raymond that supply and demand won't work because the the metro capacity is finite.
Metro can't keep the trains running (let alone its elevators operating) reliably at its current budget, what makes you think they can afford to buy additional cars? Just for you NoSUV here's some Business 101: Operation expenses get paid before Capital investments can be made. Demand, yes. Supply, may catch up when Metro learns how to balance it's books.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2007 at 2:26pm
Interesting that even though they say they are exploring all options, this article is so pro-toll.
"This says to the federal government, 'we are serious about looking at alternatives so when you have a new project, you can also consider tolling,' " Lingamfelter said. "It decreases the burden on the shoulders of hardworking Virginians."
Lies, lies and more lies! The burden will land squarely on my shoulders and on those of every other comuter.
"Tolls capture revenue from out of state travelers,..."
A statewide gas tax would also capture revenue from out of state travelers, and it would distribute this transportation cost burden over a much wider group of users thus reducing the impact on any one group. A statewide gas tax also restores some equity in the state's transportation cost distribution between NOVA (which has carried an unfairly large burden for too long) and the rest of the state.
Thanks goodness, "Two Northern Virginia senators were at first wary of the idea for fears that tolls would be placed on the Capital Beltway and Interstate 66.
Charging commuters going to Washington, D.C., or Maryland a daily toll could be "brutal," said Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, R-Vienna."
The sentiment is right, but misplaced,
"But those interstates could not be considered under this measure because there are already talks of charging tolls on those roads, said Barbara Reese, chief financial officer for the Virginia Department of Transportation."
"Plans are under way to build High Occupancy Toll lanes on Interstates 95, 395 and 495. Another study is under way to determine if congestion tolls would benefit traffic flow on I-66, Reese said."
Barbara Reese is a scoundrel! The CFO of VDOT has convinced everyone that tolls are the only way to improve transportation in NOVA. In actuallity, fiscal responsibility would be a good start! What has happened to our tax dollars that were supposed to be earmarked for transportation? Tolls may help her balance her books, but it is the tax payer who gets screwed in the end!
|
Posted By: NoSUV
Date Posted: 08 Mar 2007 at 1:07pm
quote:
Originally posted by raymond
[br]quote:
Originally posted by NoSUV
[br]Now, dark, please try not to post such ignorant drivel. The quote dealing with finite and number of metro cars deals with the assertation by raymond that supply and demand won't work because the the metro capacity is finite.
Metro can't keep the trains running (let alone its elevators operating) reliably at its current budget, what makes you think they can afford to buy additional cars? Just for you NoSUV here's some Business 101: Operation expenses get paid before Capital investments can be made. Demand, yes. Supply, may catch up when Metro learns how to balance it's books.
raymond - perhaps you should take the next level of business class to see how leveraging works.
|
Posted By: n/a
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2007 at 1:31pm
|
That's raymond, MBA, to you!
|
|