• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Tolls Constitutional?

Constantine

Banned
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
286
Reaction score
177
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
My local news paper posed the following question on it's website yesterday: Do you think the Downtown and Midtown tunnel tolls are unconstitutional? Which got me thinking about tolls in general. Are they constitutional? After all these roads we're being tolled on are public highways paved and maintained by our tax dollars. Should we really be charged to drive down roads we already pay to fund? What do you think??
 
Maybe the roads are being paid for and maintained by tolls. Tolls in that case would merely be a usage tax. Most Conservatives like usage taxes, since the people who use the government service are the ones who pay for that government service. Do you agree with Liberals that the cost of roads should be spread to the general population?
 
I never understood Americans seeming obsession with toll roads.
 
Maybe the roads are being paid for and maintained by tolls. Tolls in that case would merely be a usage tax. Most Conservatives like usage taxes, since the people who use the government service are the ones who pay for that government service. Do you agree with Liberals that the cost of roads should be spread to the general population?

Many states already spread the cost of the road ways to the general public. I don't find that to be a liberal topic. I actually pay a lot less to fund the state DOT per paycheck than I do on the highways everyday. I live in an area with year round tourism, where traffic jams are more common than not, and where if you don't get tolled....you're going the wrong way.

I don't know. I never really thought about it. I just saw it on the news site and it sparked an interested. That and I'm new and I wanted to make a thread and it seemed like a good topic :)
 
Given the fact that the guys who WROTE the Constiution often traveled on toll roads/turnpikes/toll bridges.... I'm pretty sure they thought it was OK.
 
Tolls are constitutional, it falls right along with the taxing authority, even more so than the income tax actually which required the 16th amendment to end direct taxation prohibition. Now, I think that toll roads have their place to an extent, but only with a very concise explanation to the public. I'll give you an example of where I think there is a good explanation, in New Orleans there are two main highways over Lake Pontchartrain, the original I-10 bridge and the new causeway. The causeway was built specifically to alleviate traffic on the lake but at a premium, it was explained from the beginning that the new avenue would be a toll road.

For a typical roadway, there should exist no tolls because that should have been funded by already collected taxes, something that serves as a convenience but not absolutely crucial like an "express" road could be justified with a building/maintenance fee collected as a user based tax, it's a convenience, so you have the right to use/pay or not use/avoid the additional fee. Where I think a toll is not proper is a roadway that serves as the only avenue to transportation. In that case it is already funded by tax dollars, additionally, fuel taxes go to the funding for maintenance, and there is no choice to travel it. In that particular case a toll is excessive.
 
The Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments on whether or not the potential tolls in ----- are constitutional. On one side is the Commonwealth, appealing a decision made by a ------- Circuit Court judge. The judge's decision blocked the tolls from the Downtown and Midtown tunnels, saying it's unconstitutional for the General Assembly to give the Virginia Department of Transportation and its private partner the power to set tolls without clear guidelines or standards on limiting the tolls.

This is new
 
Tolls are constitutional, it falls right along with the taxing authority, even more so than the income tax actually which required the 16th amendment to end direct taxation prohibition. Now, I think that toll roads have their place to an extent, but only with a very concise explanation to the public. I'll give you an example of where I think there is a good explanation, in New Orleans there are two main highways over Lake Pontchartrain, the original I-10 bridge and the new causeway. The causeway was built specifically to alleviate traffic on the lake but at a premium, it was explained from the beginning that the new avenue would be a toll road.

For a typical roadway, there should exist no tolls because that should have been funded by already collected taxes, something that serves as a convenience but not absolutely crucial like an "express" road could be justified with a building/maintenance fee collected as a user based tax, it's a convenience, so you have the right to use/pay or not use/avoid the additional fee. Where I think a toll is not proper is a roadway that serves as the only avenue to transportation. In that case it is already funded by tax dollars, additionally, fuel taxes go to the funding for maintenance, and there is no choice to travel it. In that particular case a toll is excessive.

Actually, if we had the technology, I could see an argument made for all roads, streets, highways, etc. to be toll. The money from them would be used to maintain them. Everyone would pay for what they use. If it was a low use road, it would have higher tolls per use. Roads not used could be taken out, or maintained at public general fund expense for fire vehiclesuse only, when necessary. There really would be no reason for everyone to pay the same for use of motor ways. If only 5 people drive down a specific road on a regular basis, why should the rest of us pay for keeping that road in good working order?

My point is, I don't understand the resistance to tolls. It is a more market based solution to the upkeep as well as the creation of new motor ways than paying for them from the general fund.
 
My local news paper posed the following question on it's website yesterday: Do you think the Downtown and Midtown tunnel tolls are unconstitutional? Which got me thinking about tolls in general. Are they constitutional? After all these roads we're being tolled on are public highways paved and maintained by our tax dollars. Should we really be charged to drive down roads we already pay to fund? What do you think??

That depends, down here GA 400 was built to be paid for by tolls. Everyone knew that from the get go. The problem was on the road was paid for the toll booth still stood and tolls were still collected. Finally, after enough outrage over this fact and ten years after the road was paid off, the toll booths are coming down.

But in this case tolls allowed a needed highway to be built. But if the road is built with taxpayer dollars, then no.
 
My local news paper posed the following question on it's website yesterday: Do you think the Downtown and Midtown tunnel tolls are unconstitutional? Which got me thinking about tolls in general. Are they constitutional? After all these roads we're being tolled on are public highways paved and maintained by our tax dollars. Should we really be charged to drive down roads we already pay to fund? What do you think??

On what possible basis would toll roads be unconstitutional, especially considering they're all state and local matters?
 
My local news paper posed the following question on it's website yesterday: Do you think the Downtown and Midtown tunnel tolls are unconstitutional? Which got me thinking about tolls in general. Are they constitutional? After all these roads we're being tolled on are public highways paved and maintained by our tax dollars. Should we really be charged to drive down roads we already pay to fund? What do you think??

Well - in my experience there are two types of toll roads:

The roads that, by taking the toll route, you get there faster, with less traffic, and with less fuss. It's an option. The tolls, therefor, is providing you with a benefit that you enjoy.

Then there are the roads that are not an option, you really have no choice, and every stop to get gas - etc - puts you through a toll booth. These roads are the ones that tend to be crap. I'm thinking of some roads in Oklahoma, for example - like between Lawton and OKC. That road is ****. You pay 2 tolls to go to Lawton and the road is absolute crap. There's no benefit.

So - when they're optional and come with benefits, I happily pay. The roads around San Antonio fall into this category. Pay $5.00 in total and you can drive 75MPH - cutting a 2 hour hell of a traffic jam into a one-hour blissful skimming through the desert. Away from the city and people. It's awesome.
 
My local news paper posed the following question on it's website yesterday: Do you think the Downtown and Midtown tunnel tolls are unconstitutional? Which got me thinking about tolls in general. Are they constitutional? After all these roads we're being tolled on are public highways paved and maintained by our tax dollars. Should we really be charged to drive down roads we already pay to fund? What do you think??



In this case, a toll is another tax. A toll is a tax that is paid by those who benefit from the thing that they are paying to use.

It seems both fair and appropriate.

Is it legal for the government to do this? You're kidding, right?
 
Actually, if we had the technology, I could see an argument made for all roads, streets, highways, etc. to be toll. The money from them would be used to maintain them. Everyone would pay for what they use. If it was a low use road, it would have higher tolls per use. Roads not used could be taken out, or maintained at public general fund expense for fire vehiclesuse only, when necessary. There really would be no reason for everyone to pay the same for use of motor ways. If only 5 people drive down a specific road on a regular basis, why should the rest of us pay for keeping that road in good working order?

My point is, I don't understand the resistance to tolls. It is a more market based solution to the upkeep as well as the creation of new motor ways than paying for them from the general fund.
My issue is I don't trust politicians to do it correctly. If they wanted tolls on every road, it would be fine if they dropped taxes in general to compensate and make the numbers right, but I'm sure they would tack on the new tax without giving a break in the other direction. Plus, there is the argument I have seen in the past that just about everyone uses the road in some way, whether they bicycle, ride the bus, or consume goods(that are delivered on them). I dunno, it just seems simpler to have everyone pay for the roads in this case, or have a toll, but not both.
 
On what possible basis would toll roads be unconstitutional, especially considering they're all state and local matters?

Do you want the link? You could go ask the news paper....

I don't know. I copy and pasted a poll. Sheesh guys. Chill.
 
Do you want the link? You could go ask the news paper....

I don't know. I copy and pasted a poll. Sheesh guys. Chill.

If you didn't want discussion, why did you ask for it?
 
I never understood Americans seeming obsession with toll roads.

Of all the ways to collect money to support the roads, its really the least efficient. In NJ, we have the Garden State Parkway, Atlantic City Expressway and NJ Turnpike which are tolled. Most other roads have no tolls except for river crossings into other states. Of course, the issue becomes political and I actually remember somebody arguing, "Do you think its fair that grandma who doesn't drive and lives up in Sparta (Sussex County pretty far removed from the GSP) would have to pay for the Garden State Parkway?"

Of course, the ding dong living in Holmdel who drives it every day has to pay for Route 15?

The roads need to be paid for best way is through a gas tax or by taxing use through odometers by car per registration.
 
My local news paper posed the following question on it's website yesterday: Do you think the Downtown and Midtown tunnel tolls are unconstitutional? Which got me thinking about tolls in general. Are they constitutional? After all these roads we're being tolled on are public highways paved and maintained by our tax dollars. Should we really be charged to drive down roads we already pay to fund? What do you think??

The only way a toll is really going to be unconstitutional is if it amounts to a 'penalty' against interstate commerce.

Has any toll amounted to this? I mean, Hudson River crossings are now $13. Another toll that perturbs me is the triumvirate of tolls crossing from NJ to DE (its not the amount because I rarely go there, its the number of stops), NJ Turnpike, Delware Memorial Bridge and then Delaware whacks you for $5 bucks (as an aside that toll isn't just avoidable, its actually easier to avoid the toll than to pay it)
 
My local news paper posed the following question on it's website yesterday: Do you think the Downtown and Midtown tunnel tolls are unconstitutional? Which got me thinking about tolls in general. Are they constitutional? After all these roads we're being tolled on are public highways paved and maintained by our tax dollars. Should we really be charged to drive down roads we already pay to fund? What do you think??

I'm puzzled as to HOW it would be unconstitutional. What constitutional amendment or provision is it violating? Does the government not have the right to charge for use of services? Does that mean that every fee you pay for anything government offered such as Driver's licenses and Birth Certificate copies is also unconstitutional?
 
When the toll starts amounting to a penalty as oposed to an expenses rationally related to an expense. Imagine if NY/PA and DE imposed a $1,000 toll to enter from NJ.....that'd be unconstitutional....
 
Just because something is constitutional doesn't mean its a good idea. Tolls are real pain in the ass because they slow down traffic and very inefficient because you have to pay for staff and technology just to collect it. Regular commuters in the bay area have probably literally had days of their lives wasted waiting in line to pay to cross the damn bridges.
 
Back
Top Bottom