Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
Author Message
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #21
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-07-2014 10:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 11:02 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Can't say I'm a fan of privatization either. I'm very afraid that private corporations would go oversea's for the rebar and steal and that would be the final nail in the coffin for the steel industry in the US.
I was mostly thinking of skyrocketing costs for shipping.
Privatization would cause those skyrocketing costs to hit warp speed, dude.
07-07-2014 03:01 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #22
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-07-2014 01:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 11:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 10:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Privatization or tolls on the interstates would be catastrophic for the economy. I'm surprised anybody would even suggest it.
You mean, like it is in Europe?
Remind me again, is the United States in Europe?

No, but if your premise is that it would be catastrophic for the economy, don't you think it would be a good idea to be able to show that it has proved to be catastrophic for other economies elsewhere?

Or are you satisfied with it's going to be catastrophic simply because you said it's going to be catastrophic, and that's enough?

What I'd actually expect with privatization--and I mean true privatization--is better maintenance, more and faster additions in growing areas that need more capacity, more innovation with regard to traffic-beating solutions, a better product all around.

And people who either couldn't or didn't want to pay the freight would still have the alternative of the US and state route systems, which would probably lead to some revitalization along those corridors.
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2014 04:14 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
07-07-2014 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #23
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-07-2014 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 01:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 11:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 10:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Privatization or tolls on the interstates would be catastrophic for the economy. I'm surprised anybody would even suggest it.
You mean, like it is in Europe?
Remind me again, is the United States in Europe?

No, but if your premise is that it would be catastrophic for the economy, don't you think it would be a good idea to be able to show that it has proved to be catastrophic for other economies elsewhere?

Or are you satisfied with it's going to be catastrophic simply because you said it's going to be catastrophic, and that's enough?

What I'd actually expect with privatization--and I mean true privatization--is better maintenance, more and faster additions in growing areas that need more capacity, more innovation with regard to traffic-beating solutions, a better product all around.

And people who either couldn't or didn't want to pay the freight would still have the alternative of the US and state route systems, which would probably lead to some revitalization along those corridors.

Our transportation system is unique and completely distinct from the Europeans. A comparison is utterly useless.

Revitalization, at what cost? Your idea simply moves money around and won't even result in your claimed positive. Is it a 'positive' just because you say so?

Many roads today would be total losers from a private stance. Your idea isn't workable. It means increased cost and less access to travel for most.
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2014 06:01 PM by HeartOfDixie.)
07-07-2014 05:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,240
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #24
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-07-2014 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 09:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  What makes you think maintenance would improve with privatization?

Because that's what happens in the places that have done that.

In fact, of all the functions I listed, every one has been privatized in more than one place overseas, and performance has consistently improved in every one.

There is no reason for them to do any of the things you allege that doesn't already exist in government-monopoly roads.

Are there examples in this country where it worked?
07-07-2014 08:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #25
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-07-2014 08:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 09:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  What makes you think maintenance would improve with privatization?

Because that's what happens in the places that have done that.

In fact, of all the functions I listed, every one has been privatized in more than one place overseas, and performance has consistently improved in every one.

There is no reason for them to do any of the things you allege that doesn't already exist in government-monopoly roads.

Are there examples in this country where it worked?

Has worked in Texas with both private (Fort Bend) and semi-privatized (Ausin area) toll roads. In Austin in particular, new roads got built a lot quicker than they would have by state highway department.
07-08-2014 02:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #26
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-07-2014 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I'd actually expect with privatization--and I mean true privatization--is better maintenance, more and faster additions in growing areas that need more capacity, more innovation with regard to traffic-beating solutions, a better product all around.

And people who either couldn't or didn't want to pay the freight would still have the alternative of the US and state route systems, which would probably lead to some revitalization along those corridors.

Outside of the NE and Chicago, what areas of the US interstate system are in major disrepair? The private system would still need to leverage the gov't for collective bargaining to negotiate land and eminent domain to get those recalcitrant owners to comply with expansions. And honestly, where is the extra capacity needed? In most instances, we are talking about high speed bypasses around major metro areas.

Finally, the real holes in the US transport system are in the surface streets and in the inability of freight rail to make on time deliveries. Its not that I'm against privatization, but the only legitimate argument for changing systems IMO is if you desire a smaller government.
07-08-2014 06:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigerfan21 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,131
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Memphis, THFC
Location: Arlington, TN
Post: #27
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
With the lack of a national rail system, the interstates are absolutely needed here. I would kill for a good rail system though. It sucks having to be routed through Chicago to get anywhere on Amtrak from Memphis (unless you go to New Orleans).
07-08-2014 09:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #28
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-08-2014 06:54 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I'd actually expect with privatization--and I mean true privatization--is better maintenance, more and faster additions in growing areas that need more capacity, more innovation with regard to traffic-beating solutions, a better product all around.
And people who either couldn't or didn't want to pay the freight would still have the alternative of the US and state route systems, which would probably lead to some revitalization along those corridors.
Outside of the NE and Chicago, what areas of the US interstate system are in major disrepair? The private system would still need to leverage the gov't for collective bargaining to negotiate land and eminent domain to get those recalcitrant owners to comply with expansions. And honestly, where is the extra capacity needed? In most instances, we are talking about high speed bypasses around major metro areas.
Finally, the real holes in the US transport system are in the surface streets and in the inability of freight rail to make on time deliveries. Its not that I'm against privatization, but the only legitimate argument for changing systems IMO is if you desire a smaller government.

That's one very good reason for it, and for privatizing the other functions I listed above.
Another is to put the cost more directly on those who benefit.
Another is that privatization has worked better than government operation for numerous functions in Europe, and that's where government generally tends to be more competent than here.
Another, as I noted, is that these things could be set up like utilities to generate a somewhat fixed rate of return, and the assets could be held in the social security administration and the ROI applied to reduce the future social security deficit. So when you are paying for those things, you are not only paying the cost of your use but also helping bail out social security.
07-08-2014 11:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #29
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
I think that is the only real positive, bailing out the government's bottom line.
07-08-2014 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #30
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
And if you privatize the roads, places like much of Appalachia, a good portion of the Rocky Mountains, and other places where roads can be very expensive to build and maintain would become desolation in short order, because it isn't profitable or expedient to build or maintain the roads in that area. Only someone who is very naive, or uneducated about the realities of business would think it's a good idea. It isn't.

And it would not bail out the government's bottom line, HOD. It would lead to massive unemployment in certain areas of the nation, a readjustment of population, as people move from the more depressed and impassible areas of the nation to the more populous areas of the nation, which can ill afford more population without either means or employment. And this is just one aspect of the damage that would result from this move. There are many more, including, I'm sure, several that I have not considered.

Thinking any private enterprise would consider the good of the nation above the bottom line is ludicrous, and only a fool would consider it. Trust me on this one.
07-08-2014 12:08 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #31
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-08-2014 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think that is the only real positive, bailing out the government's bottom line.

That and the expectation that a private enterprise would manage it better.

I really don't understand the blowback from so-called conservatives on this. I can understand the left complaining about this, but not the right. This thread has probably gotten too political for the history board, if anyone wants to continue, probably best to go to the spin room.
07-08-2014 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #32
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-08-2014 12:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-08-2014 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think that is the only real positive, bailing out the government's bottom line.

That and the expectation that a private enterprise would manage it better.

I really don't understand the blowback from so-called conservatives on this. I can understand the left complaining about this, but not the right. This thread has probably gotten too political for the history board, if anyone wants to continue, probably best to go to the spin room.

I'm not sure how evaluating whether the Interstate System would be better managed in public or private hands warrants are board change. Especially since the Interstate was a government program that worked and was well managed. And wouldn't consider those who disagree with the privatization as blowback, just that I need to see specific failures that justify such a move.

Would tolling the expressways generate revenue; sure it would. Especially in metro areas where the density would allow for a generous ROI. But much like you're arguments that the Bismarck Health Care system starts to break down at around 6-8 million people, I would contend that similar failures would crop up when trying to profit from a highway system made up of over 47K miles versus the less than 8K miles of the Autobahn. Much of it in isolated and out of the way like Bit said.
07-08-2014 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #33
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
For large parts of the country there would be little to no private investment since the return in other areas would be a far better return on investment.

It would be a killer for 40 states and vast parts of the other 10.
07-08-2014 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCGrad1992 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,770
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 2265
I Root For: Bearcats U
Location: North Carolina
Post: #34
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
Privatization aside for a moment, I agree the interstate system's benefits outweigh the detriments overall but you have to take the bad with the good as well. Unlike rural areas with access to interstates, the system is overloaded (level of service/capacity) in many of the larger metro areas and commute times are unreal. Have you driven through Atlanta or Washington DC lately? I have and it sucks. Can't imagine Los Angeles. The cost to add capacity is problematic and air quality can be awful. Here in North Carolina we have the most road miles under the maintenance responsibility of any State DOT in the entire US (recently surpassed Texas). Remember that maintenance is not just about about paving but includes maintaining/repairing/replacing bridges, overpasses, interchanges, storm drainage systems, signage, etc. Maintenance needs compete for budget dollars against ADDING capacity to the system and therein lies the problem...do you raise gas taxes, create tolls, cut spending elsewhere, new construction moratoriums, etc., to offset the deficit? Throw in the age of some of the infrastructure with bridges and overpasses in particular and you have some real safety challenges ahead. The air quality here in North Carolina can be awful at times during the summer months in our larger metro areas (i.e., Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Greensboro-Winston Salem) due to the traffic congestion.

The interstates also helped to facilitate urban/suburban sprawl where folks live an hour from work and drive everywhere for their daily needs. This is also compounded by our societal culture to own and drive a car per family member. Not saying this is inherently wrong, it's just how things evolved. Would love to see more rapid transit (rail) systems developed but the cost is astronomical. Going back to the original post, I'm sure President Eisenhower and Congress weren't necessarily thinking about the potential negative outcomes since national defense was the primary tipping point to fund and build the interstate system. What began as a great logistical idea ended up having some unintended consequences as so often happens with large scale/complex projects. Again, I don't believe these outweigh the positives, in particular our economic progress, but it is interesting dynamics to say the least.
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2014 10:10 PM by UCGrad1992.)
07-08-2014 10:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #35
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-07-2014 11:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-07-2014 11:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  And while a toll system sounds great on paper, the performance and maintenance of the current toll roads (Penn, NJ Turnpike, Garden State) don't fill me with a lot of confidence.

I don't believe those are privatized.

This. Paying the government a fee is not privatization.

I will say one thing. Infrastructure is one of the 4 things I do not object to paying for....including a good arbitration system, Defense and public health safety. The rest is a fcking waste of my money and does damn near nothing but line the pockets of business, politicians and middle class bureaucrats.
07-13-2014 08:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Vamos Morados
*

Posts: 7,466
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 121
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #36
Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-06-2014 02:05 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think the positives outweigh the negatives. For example, it's far more efficient to transport goods on interstates between the coasts and inner America than using the older US Highway routes. The US Highway routes became the main street through plenty of towns, while interstates completely went around or over them. For example, I can get to downtown Pittsburgh in 15 minutes using I79 and I376. If I use US19, it would take me closer to 30-45 minutes. You get far better gas mileage traveling the interstate highways as well.

Kittonhead, I totally understand where you're coming from, but I do find the interstate system more effective. For me to get to DC, I can jump on I79 to I68 to I70 to I270 and get there in about 4 1/2 hours as opposed to using US 19 through Washington PA to US 40 and go through little towns like Brownsville PA, Uniontown PA, Hagerstown MD, Frederick MD, and all the little towns that the state roads go through to get to DC. I'm sure it was a blow to those economies and left many as "ghost towns". But the Interstate system also helped make some towns grow as well. Cranberry and Wexford (suburbs of Pittsburgh) benefited from I79.
Much of that depends on what part of the country in which you live. Out west, where US Highways were built through the sparsely populated desert and plains, converting them to freeways made sense. Through most of the east, US Highways wound up following auto trails that led right through the center of town. Even without interstates in many towns, you still see US Highways with Business and Bypass routes.

You also run into some odd situations like split US Routes. Louisville could have had two six-lane (or more) highways running through opposite sides of town that would converge downtown before crossing the Ohio River into Indiana. Nashville would not only have a US 31W/31E issue, but one with 70N/70S as well. An upgraded US 66 would have some odd complications along its route, and remove nearly all of its historic character. There are also some US routes that aren't really replicated by any interstate such as US 431 (although Kentucky did build a freeway that mirrors the Owensboro-Bowling Green portion).
07-27-2014 10:27 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #37
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-05-2014 04:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We should do what is done in several European countries. Privatize the interstate highway system as a national toll road system. Let the social security administration own it, transfer it in exchange for a like amount of social security liabilities. I've seen estimates that such a system would generate $50 billion in net revenues a year. Based on a 5% ROI, the transfer would generate a $1 trillion offset to liabilities.

With privatized management, maintenance would improve and new construction would focus on places that would generate the most revenues--which would be those with the greatest needs. The $50 billion annual profit would reduce the social security shortfall.

Do the same thing with the post office, Amtrak, TVA, the western water and power authorities, air traffic control, and a few others. All these would simply be following models that have proved to work over and over in numerous foreign countries. And whether that would be liberal of conservative would be hard to define, because privatization sounds conservative but most of the countries where it has worked would be considered far left or socialist.

I also favor privatization...but...I have to admit that roads are one thing I have very little problem having my tax dollars spent on.
07-29-2014 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #38
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-29-2014 11:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 04:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We should do what is done in several European countries. Privatize the interstate highway system as a national toll road system. Let the social security administration own it, transfer it in exchange for a like amount of social security liabilities. I've seen estimates that such a system would generate $50 billion in net revenues a year. Based on a 5% ROI, the transfer would generate a $1 trillion offset to liabilities.
With privatized management, maintenance would improve and new construction would focus on places that would generate the most revenues--which would be those with the greatest needs. The $50 billion annual profit would reduce the social security shortfall.
Do the same thing with the post office, Amtrak, TVA, the western water and power authorities, air traffic control, and a few others. All these would simply be following models that have proved to work over and over in numerous foreign countries. And whether that would be liberal of conservative would be hard to define, because privatization sounds conservative but most of the countries where it has worked would be considered far left or socialist.
I also favor privatization...but...I have to admit that roads are one thing I have very little problem having my tax dollars spent on.

Keep in mind that what I'm proposing to privatize is the Interstate system, because it has significant revenue potential from user fees. Other roads would remain tax funded. With the Interstates pulled out, current funding levels from existing sources should be more than enough to accomplish significant upgrading of those as well. Again, a lot of European governments do it this way, and if those socialists can make it work then surely we can.
07-29-2014 04:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #39
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-29-2014 04:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(07-29-2014 11:47 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 04:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We should do what is done in several European countries. Privatize the interstate highway system as a national toll road system. Let the social security administration own it, transfer it in exchange for a like amount of social security liabilities. I've seen estimates that such a system would generate $50 billion in net revenues a year. Based on a 5% ROI, the transfer would generate a $1 trillion offset to liabilities.
With privatized management, maintenance would improve and new construction would focus on places that would generate the most revenues--which would be those with the greatest needs. The $50 billion annual profit would reduce the social security shortfall.
Do the same thing with the post office, Amtrak, TVA, the western water and power authorities, air traffic control, and a few others. All these would simply be following models that have proved to work over and over in numerous foreign countries. And whether that would be liberal of conservative would be hard to define, because privatization sounds conservative but most of the countries where it has worked would be considered far left or socialist.
I also favor privatization...but...I have to admit that roads are one thing I have very little problem having my tax dollars spent on.

Keep in mind that what I'm proposing to privatize is the Interstate system, because it has significant revenue potential from user fees. Other roads would remain tax funded. With the Interstates pulled out, current funding levels from existing sources should be more than enough to accomplish significant upgrading of those as well. Again, a lot of European governments do it this way, and if those socialists can make it work then surely we can.
you will never get me to oppose less government and more private enterprise...period.
07-31-2014 05:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #40
RE: Nearly 60 Years Later: Did the Federal Highway Act Help or Hurt?
(07-29-2014 04:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Keep in mind that what I'm proposing to privatize is the Interstate system, because it has significant revenue potential from user fees. Other roads would remain tax funded. With the Interstates pulled out, current funding levels from existing sources should be more than enough to accomplish significant upgrading of those as well. Again, a lot of European governments do it this way, and if those socialists can make it work then surely we can.

From everything I've read privatization seems like a mixed bag with very little delta from the transfer from the gov't in terms of performance. The Indiana Toll Road (ITR) for example, netted the state a 3.6 billion windfall, which they have burned through in 10 years. The ITR lease was for 75 years. Within the 10 year time frame the price for cars paying cash, the rate for the 157-mile length of the road has increased in six years, from $4.65 to $9. For a five-axle truck, the increase has been greater – from $14.55 when the lease was approved to $36.20 today.

And freight transport is where theses companies expect to really make their money. But such increases in tolls can induce transporters to consider shipping by rail or inform truck drivers to use alternate routes.
07-31-2014 07:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.