[TriLUG] [OT] TriLUGger on the news

Sat May 19 10:16:39 EDT 2007

We do need 540 to be a complete loop, no question about that.  One of
the biggest issues is that this next section, now officially named the
"Triangle Expressway" per the NCTA BOD meeting last Wednesday, was
originally promised to Apex, Holly Springs, Cary, Morrisville, etc. as
a free road just like the northern portion of 540.  Now the State has
renigged on this and is attempting to force tolling upon this region
as the *only* way to get the road built.  They are saying "toll road
or no road".  There are other proposed tolls in NC that I'm against as
well, but this project would be the first, this is the precendent
setter.

Like you, I agree that if we are going to have a NCTA (NC Turnpike
Authority) that I-95 should be tolled and I say at the borders with VA
and SC.  This will generate a great amount of revenue for I-95 due to
through-state traffic.  Only a small few locals who live and work on
opposite sides of the border would be affected.  Guess what?  The NCTA
doesn't even consider this, they aren't putting any work into
researching this alternative at all.  Yes there is some other VA/NC
accord of some kind looking into this.  But you know what it is - I-95
completely new 8 lane corridor through NC and the current 95 would
remain free as "business 95" leaving that road still needing State
funds to be kept up.  I personally would support tolling the currect
95, letting those toll funds better that road and then the State could
divert funding from that road to other projects since the tolling will
pay for improvements/upkeep on its own road.  Some people include 77
as another road which could benefit from this idea.  Even other say
85, but I'm not as convinced on 85, but I wouldn't oppose it either.

Glad you feel tolling it all or not is fair for our region.  The
problem is they will not toll the northern section.  There are no good
free alternative routes, one of the NCTA's key restrictions.  I grew
up in that area and can vouch for that.  They lay claim to HW 55 and
Davis Dr. meeting those requirements in western Wake Co... and if it
makes anyone feel any better, I'm not sure the timeline but Davis is
expected to go 4 lanes all the way from Cary to RTP paid for by the
DOT and 55 is basically complete as 4 lanes.

Now Tom, specifically to something on US 158 - the NCTA is looking at
trying a public/private partnership on one of its proposed tolling
projects.  That is the proposed Mid-Currituck bridge.
http://www.ncturnpike.org/projects/Mid_Currituck/  Let me warn you, if
a private venture gets involved, you can almost be certain that toll
will NEVER go away.  I'm not sure how close that project is to you,
but I'd be worried if I was local in your area.

For those in western Wake wondering, hmmm, will a toll mean I have to
adjust my budget?  YES.  IF the toll is set at $2 each way, that's
$4/day, $20/week and $1040/year!!  I'd say that figure impacts any
budget, it would mine.

To further on TomEd's comments, NC is a donor state to the Fed.  We
were promised to get 0.92 cents on the dollar back.  We are currently
getting only 0.86 cents back on the dollar.  That hurts our road
funding as well.  Thank you Feds.  I don't see the arguement for tolls
in that, but there you have it anyway.

David
No Toll on 540
http://www.notollson540.org

On 5/18/07, Tom Eisenmenger <teisenmenger at charter.net> wrote:
> David, Steve, Kevin, and others have all made some good points - now
> if I might step in and offer a different perspective:
>
> I live in Roanoke Rapids which is in one of the poorest, least
> economically-developed areas of the state.  It is this way because
> good-paying jobs are scarce due in no small part to the lack of a
> decent transportation infrastructure.  One way to attract relocating
> businesses to this area is to revitalize our local highway system:
> for eastern NC this means to widen US158 into a 4-lane divided
> highway from Henderson to Kitty Hawk, complete the widening of US64
> from Williamston to Manteo, likewise US70 from Smithfield to Morehead
> City, and US258 running north-south from VA to SC.  Many of these are
> proposed DOT projects that have been deferred for years or even
> decades.  They are perpetually on the back burner because projects in
> the state's metropolitan areas, especially the Triangle, routinely
> take precedence over projects in more rural areas.  No wonder - the
> seat of power is, after all, in Raleigh.
>
> So now we come to I-540, the last of several Triangle projects to
> bump the widening of US158 and others from the DOT's priority list.
> This project is not surprisingly over schedule and over budget,
> whether due to a spike in construction costs or to "mismanagement" it
> doesn't really matter.  Now, Wake County is informed that it will be
> 2032 (!) before the new beltway will be completed unless additional
> funding is forthcoming.  While I sympathize somewhat with your "free
> roads" movement, I do think it unfair for you to expect the rest of
> the state to continue to subsidize your road construction whilst
> projects needed elsewhere are deferred yet again.
>
> (I would like to think that the DOT has recognized that its
> priorities must shift else the economic divide between urban and
> rural regions will continue to grow but the reality is probably not
> as noble.  I would also suggest that it is largely this economic
> divide funneling economic development into the urban areas that is
> fueling your rapid growth and causing all sorts of other problems -
> can you say "year-round schools"?)
>
> I think the choice before you is reasonable:  wait until the 2030s
> for the project to be completed when time and funding allow as other
> DOT projects are assigned priority or expedite the project by funding
> it with tolls.    You could raise additional revenues through taxes
> but that means a certain increase in the gasoline tax which is a
> regressive tax that hits the poor particularly hard.  You don't have
> to have tolls as long as you're willing to defer your own project for
> a while - imagine that!!
>
> FWIW, while my local Chamber of Commerce is opposed to a toll I-95
> corridor, I have supported the idea as long as its generated revenue
> is applied to the projects noted above.  After all, what is more fair
> than those who most benefit from the building of a thoroughfare -
> those who actually use it - being the ones who pay a little extra for
> it?
>
> If it makes you feel any better, I do object to just a portion of
> I-540 being designated toll - if this plan is to be implemented then
> the entire beltline should be a toll road until the beltline project
> is completed.
>
> Oh, and to further get under your skin - I'm typing this up on a Mac
> Mini running OS X ;-)
>
> Sheesh - guess I'll have to wear a paper bag over my head to the next
> TriLUG meeting...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> On May 18, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > On Friday 18 May 2007 07:05, Kevin Otte wrote:
> >> Jeremy Portzer wrote:
> >>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >>>> How about a compromise?  Tolls for single occupant SUVs on 540?
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure hybrid vehicles would be excepted though.  :-)
> >>>
> >>> --Jeremy
> >>>
> >>> (David drives a hybrid SUV, for those wondering what the heck
> >>> this part
> >>> of the thread is about...)
> >>
> >> While I recognize the humor intended by Andrew's statement, the
> >> problem
> >> is the tolls aren't for environmental protection purposes.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, all the slowing down and speeding up burns
> > more gas and
> > pollutes more.
> >
> > SteveT
> >
> > Steve Litt
> > Author: Universal Troubleshooting Process books and courseware
> > http://www.troubleshooters.com/
> > --
> > TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/
> > trilug
> > TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> > TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
>
> --
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
>