Kansas Legislature
Proposal would charge speeders higher tolls
March 1, 2007
Advertisement
Reader poll
Kansas Turnpike
Lawmaker proposes speeders pay extra on Turnpike
Lead-foot motorists letting it loose on the Kansas Turnpike better be on the lookout. if one lawmaker has his way, how fast you drive on the Turnpike will determine how much you pay on the toll. Enlarge video
Topeka — A state legislator has introduced a proposal to charge higher tolls on the Kansas Turnpike based on speed.
"I could vote for this before I could vote for an across-the-board increase in tolls," Sen. David Haley, D-Kansas City, said Wednesday.
Haley's measure, Senate Bill 205, would allow the Kansas Turnpike Authority to charge drivers extra if they speed on the road.
Speed could be determined by calculating the number of miles driven and comparing that with the time punched on the ticket a driver receives when getting on the turnpike.
The issue of turnpike tolls has come up in recent weeks amid the debate over how to fund $660 million in repairs to universities, including Kansas University.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius introduced a plan to increase tolls to raise funds for the repairs. That proposal has generally been rejected by the Legislature.
Haley said his plan would give motorists some control over how much they pay. He said he has thought about this for years after the turnpike raised tolls in 2004.
Haley said the plan would not interfere with law enforcement continuing to enforce the turnpike speed limit.
But the proposal is stuck in the legislative ditch.
Turnpike travelers and key legislators said they don't like the idea.
"There has been extremely low interest in doing that," said Senate Transportation Chairman Les Donovan, R-Wichita. "It doesn't seem workable."
People could speed and then stop for coffee and avoid paying the extra toll, Donovan said. "There are too many unanswered questions," he said.
"I understand we need revenue in the state but I'm not sure this is the best way to do it," turnpike user Kim Brown, of Lawrence, told KTKA-TV.
Lisa Callahan, a spokeswoman for the Turnpike Authority, said Haley has never talked to the authority about his proposal.
"It could be interpreted different ways," she said of the bill.
Despite the negative feedback, Haley said he was undeterred.
He noted that he worked for eight years to get a bill passed making cruelty to animals a felony.
"It's not the first time an innovative idea has been suppressed by leadership. They are in dire need of getting around the learning curve," he said.
More like this
- Legislature to consider speed-based tolls 35 comments / January 5, 2009
- Bill ties turnpike tolls to speed 12 comments / January 6, 2009
- Banking firms suggest selling Kansas Turnpike 16 comments / January 19, 2006
- Groups float plan to privatize Kansas Turnpike 30 comments / January 18, 2006
- Lawmaker wants Kansas Turnpike brought under state umbrella 20 comments / February 2, 2009
Top ads RSS
- Dining Services Supervisor Must be a CERTIFIED DIETARY MANAGER Hospitality ...
- Nurse needed at Family Medicine Associates for both part time ...
- Floor Tech/Floater Sun.-Thurs., 2-4 hrs. per night, start at 5:00 ...
- Financial Manager Research & Graduate Studies (RGS) and the KU ...
- HOLIDAY RUSH $400/$600 week. 30 openings available in various departments ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 52 comments
- KU's Wright didn't approach Perkins November 21, 2009 · 13 comments
- Palin stirs feminist ambivalence November 21, 2009 · 21 comments
- Blog: Why Do People Repeat Falsehoods? November 20, 2009 · 58 comments
- Fatal mindset November 20, 2009 · 50 comments
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009 · 68 comments
- <strong>LIVE:</strong> UT 44/KU 13 — 11:43 left in 4th quarter November 21, 2009 · 1 comment
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 80 comments
- Nothing to lose: Reeling KU huge underdog for a change November 21, 2009 · 26 comments
- Blog: We Noticed November 19, 2009 · 124 comments
- Four decades in crisis mode November 21, 2009
- Winter sports officially begin for city schools November 17, 2009
- The cowboy way: Williamstown church ministry draws unique following November 21, 2009
- Mangino's contract outlines probe November 21, 2009
- Americans save more but earn less as interest rates fall November 21, 2009
- Obesity activist crossing country to urge American Indians to embrace healthier diet November 20, 2009
- A sad story November 19, 2009
- Method, committee makeup key to KU chancellor search December 13, 2008
- Leaders offer tips for chancellor’s successful tenure November 21, 2009
- On target November 21, 2009
1 March 2007
at 3:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
rjmwx81 (Anonymous) says…
It's not an “innovative idea being suppressed by leadership.” It's a foolish idea attempting to make money off of illegal behavior.
1 March 2007
at 6:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksknowall (Anonymous) says…
It came from democrat David Haley - ever heard anything except foolish from him?
1 March 2007
at 6:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
It's a bad idea because almost everyone stops to fill up on 35 through the state. You'd just have to stop long enough fo your time to go down.
If they are going to do it they should be handing out speeding tickets instead of fines.
I personally hate the idea though - i travel pretty regularly and will use regular 35 instead of the turnpike to do this. I can just go through ottawa.
1 March 2007
at 6:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…
This would be a tax on the people of the great town of Lawrence as they all drove to Kansas City and Topeka to get to their jobs. I'm all for it!
1 March 2007
at 7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thomgreen (Anonymous) says…
So what about the inverse of this situation, do you charge the people that drive under the speed limit extra too? And what would be the definition of “speeding”. If you get there one minute faster are you going to get charged extra? Just because someone is bending/breaking the law we're going to charge them more for a service compared to someone that uses the same service yet goes the speed limit? Does speeding cause the roads to wear down more? There just doesn't seem to be a logical tie here. If everyone is using the service equally shouldn't we all be charged equally for that service?
Oh, and wouldn't this step dangerously close to someone being judged of breaking the law without an avenue for appeal? Seems there's an issue with due process here.
1 March 2007
at 7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jeteras (Anonymous) says…
I knew we had some dumb$h1tz in the capitol but this goes wayyy beyond that. Just think these idiots make our LAWS!
1 March 2007
at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
consumer1 (Anonymous) says…
So, is there a legal obligation for the toll workers to report tag numbers to the authorities when some one comes in under the clock? If they don't report them are they an accomplis? What are the liabiities to the turnpike when some idiot has a wreck and kills someone who is NOT speeding?? This reeks of some moron getting stopped in their escalade going 120 m.p.h. then saying to the cop, “What I am going to pay the toll”??? By paying the toll, it allows me to go as fast as I want. Another great thinker and protector of “Open mindedness”.
1 March 2007
at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
oldgoof (Anonymous) says…
This legislator's salary should be garnished for the obvious reasons.
1 March 2007
at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thomgreen (Anonymous) says…
An idiot is an idiot, no matter if he's a Republican or a Democrat.
1 March 2007
at 7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
David Haley is a product of the old time political machine of Wyandotte County and does nothing but pader to the liberals with “feel-good” measures.
Thanks.
Marion.
1 March 2007
at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sleepylady (Anonymous) says…
why have a toll road at all? give it back to the state!
why should we have to pay a toll to drive on the Interstate Highway???
1 March 2007
at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
akuna (Anonymous) says…
I'll go for it as long as the speed limit is optional. If I am paying higher fees to speed, then I shouldn't be ticketed for doing so.
1 March 2007
at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
That'd be one way to empty all the trucks off the turnpike.
1 March 2007
at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Topside (Anonymous) says…
So if I drive slower or take longer because I stopped at McDs do I get it for free?
1 March 2007
at 8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Topside (Anonymous) says…
Sleepylady- I agree let KDOT manage it and we can get rid of the overlap of services. Because I'm pretty sure the tolls don't cover all the costs of running it.
1 March 2007
at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Wow, it's sure not hard to tell who on this forum doesn't obey speed limit laws. This will never pass because legislators don't want to anger the leadfoots, whose ranks likely include a lot of legislators.
Being the occasional leadfoot myself, I hope they don't for strictly selfish reasons, but if the speed limits mean anything at all, it does make some sense. It would likely have a greater effect at slowing drivers down than the highway patrol, who can never put enough officers on the road to accomplish what this would. But that's what you all are really objecting to, isn't it?
From a strictly law enforcement standpoint, the only reason not to do this is that it would cause those who want to speed to take alternate routes, even if those routes would still be slower than a slower speed on the turnpike. Those speeders would be much more dangerous on two-lane highways than on the turnpike.
1 March 2007
at 8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
what no more drag racing on 70?? what will people do? what about high speed chases do we get to fine the police?
1 March 2007
at 9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
thomgreen - “An idiot is an idiot, no matter if he's a Republican or a Democrat.”
Aye! It's an equal-opportunity affliction.
1 March 2007
at 9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toefungus (Anonymous) says…
Actually, this is not so bad an idea. However, instead of charging more, actually ticket the registered owner. Notice I said owner. The driver is not ticketed, just the owner of the car. A car can be borrowed, co-owned, stolen, or a rental. Automated speed traps will happen someday. Why have patrol officers in a car when a time and distance can do the job? One day all toll taking will be automated and all cars will have GPS and electronic id's. That solves the speed, break, speed problem. The turnpike is the best place to start. After so many tickets, the license is revoked.
1 March 2007
at 9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…
Speeding, then stopping for coffee, then speeding the rest of the way… that's genius, it would have taken me months of commuting to figure that out.
1 March 2007
at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Speeding, then stopping for coffee, then speeding the rest of the way… that's genius, it would have taken me months of commuting to figure that out.”
Yea, especially since the penalty for speeding under such a proposal would likely be little more than the price of a cup of coffee.
1 March 2007
at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
Sometimes the best way to avoid an accident is to accelerate. Sometimes that means exceeding the (artificial) speed limit. If we forced people to learn how to drive (I mean really drive, not just teach the basics such as what the big round thing in front of the driver is for) before licensing them, we could use the basic speed law and wouldn't need legislated limits.
1 March 2007
at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
Back when my dad drove trucks for a living, they were given 10 hours to drive 550 miles. The speed limit was 55. How were they supposed to stop to eat (or use the restroom, or anything else)? The answer? Drive 62 mph.
1 March 2007
at 10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
another control of life brought to you by frigging computers.Simply they know too much about us , follow us everywhere , and make it near impossible to be anonymous and low key.
they have photo speed cams in Scottsdale AZ , one chick racked up over 200 speeding tickets on the loop freeway there , ouch !
1 March 2007
at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“If we forced people to learn how to drive”
If you're really serious about that, you have to acknowledge that a very high percentage of people lack the ability to learn to drive really well. I'm guessing we'd need to reduce the number of licensed drivers by half or more to accomplish that.
1 March 2007
at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jrlii (Anonymous) says…
Big Brother Lives!
Speed limits are the stupidest (and easily the most violated) laws on the books.
Every stupid law decreases the respect for all laws.
Yes, people get into accidents on account of excess speed. You also see a lot of near rear-end collisions as people jam on their brakes at the sight of a Highway Patrol car.
Speed limits (if you simply must impose them) should be based exclusively on speed surveys. And RECENT speed surveys. Traffic conditions might change the appropriate speed for a location in a matter of weeks. Likewise times of congestion should be excluded from those surveys, unless you propose to have separate speed limits for those times.
1 March 2007
at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Centrist (Anonymous) says…
What if my car breaks down?? Will I be charged as a “speeder” and forever be marked on the 'system' as a 'violator' ??
And what if the computers ASSUME we are speeding when in fact we are not?? Machines DO malfunction, y'know.
no more system-generated “assumptions”
1 March 2007
at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Centrist (Anonymous) says…
Screw the taxpike then.
I'm taking alternate routes.
1 March 2007
at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“What if my car breaks down?? Will I be charged as a “speeder” and forever be marked on the 'system' as a 'violator' ??”
I'm sorry, but I don't see how your car breaking could possibly make you a speeder. It would make your average speed go down, not up.
1 March 2007
at 10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Centrist (Anonymous) says…
Oops - what I meant was someone going too slow (under 40mph) averaged over the journey. Would we be ticketed or charged for that, was my question.
Nice catch, thanks.
1 March 2007
at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
It sounds like this proposed law is aimed only at speeders, not those who go too slow.
It's a physical impossibility to exceed the legal speed limit as an average speed without at some point speeding.
You could, however, be under the minimum speed limit as an average speed without ever actually breaking that minimum speed law— by having a breakdown, or stopping for gas, coffee, etc
1 March 2007
at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Berserk (Anonymous) says…
LOL Owned by a simple mathmatical formula.
yes charge them more!
Hell yes. This is great, speeders can suck it up and pay the piper, or gtf off of our highway, so we can drive in peace.
I think they should definately NAIL everyone going to or coming from Topeka, you guys are the worst. Wether you are from Lawrence or Topeka, you make it a point to make driving that route completely retarded and dangerous.
1 March 2007
at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
purplesage (Anonymous) says…
Whatever happened to no more tolls when the turnpike got paid for????? Everything the government has a hand on becomes a source of extracting more revenue from the public, taking resources from the private sector and enlarging government. Government has an insatiable appetitie to expand and to rake in more money.
The biggest offenders of the speed limits are police officers - especially when they are not going anywhere in particular. Further, there are very few things serious enough to expose the public to the hazards of high speed chases and they are commonplace.
How are we supposed to respect these cowboys when they wantonly violate the law they are being paid (with tax dollars) to enforce?
1 March 2007
at 11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
samsnewplace (Anonymous) says…
I drive the turnpike daily and I think it's a wonderful idea for the one's who do 80+ and think there are no consequences, hand them a speeding ticket at the gate. Of course that would slow down the K-Tag lane a bit. Not sure it's do-able, but a good idea I think.
1 March 2007
at 11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…
This isn't a creative idea but rather an attempt to avoid doing the right thing.
For years, the Legislature has refused to spend money that needed to be spent so that they could grant tax relief that the State couldn't afford (and get themselves re-elected, of course). Now rather than pay the piper, the Legislature is still gameplaying. (Sebelius too for that matter.)
To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes and Yogi Berra, taxes are what we pay to get the government we want. And the people of Kansas have said they want their half dozen universities.
By underpricing the true costs of universities, the State has tricked the taxpayer into thinking they were getting more for less. The shame is that anyone would have to explain supply and demand to Republicans.
1 March 2007
at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…
I like the idea of state sanctioned speeding. It debunks the policy argument that speeding is dangerous and therefore a justification for controlling traffic through tickets and fines. Once we toss the speed limit system for a pay by MPH system I will have the flexibility of going 100 mph so that I can take lunch breaks and restroom breaks, and still not lose on time. And if I'm in a real hurry due to an economic consideration, I can do a cost benefit analysis and weigh whether speeding is financially beneficial or not. This is progress ladies and gentlemen.
A few relevant quotes from Ronald Reagan:
“Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
“The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the… government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.”
Blaming the legislature, and even Sebelius, for this bypasses the responsibility held by university trustees and department heads. A recent example was KU spending $30,000 on a break room for the Strong Hall remodeled.
1 March 2007
at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
emily_litella (Anonymous) says…
What is all this talk about hired trolls? How may trolls can there be? I've never met one, have you? Are there enough that the legislature is talking about it too?
1 March 2007
at 1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bangaranggerg (Anonymous) says…
A tax I would be interested in is this, I have to pay a higher toll for the faster the punches I give his face.
1 March 2007
at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DougCounty (Anonymous) says…
Gee, think of the fundraising possibilities: for a renotation of sporting facilities, for instance, the head of KU (i.e. KU Athletic Director) could announce a “Speeding for Sports” campaign, where folks could earmark their extra tolls for that baseball field facelift!
Biosciences in Kansas? Why not a “Speed for Seeds” rally on I-70? Lobbyists could have their own “Lap the Legislature” runs in round-trips between Topeka and Kansas City! School Districts could maybe have a special Driving for Dollars benefit, if the KTA would just go along.
The possibilities are just endless. Gentlemen, Start Your Engines!
1 March 2007
at 2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
budwhysir (Anonymous) says…
Yep you all know my feelings towards this one, we could do great things at KU with all the new money making ideas we have. Imagine how this ties in. All the traffic fighting to get to the HOME games in KC will cause alot of people to speed. This is great, I love it.
Here we come renovated university, lets go
1 March 2007
at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
“Oops - what I meant was someone going too slow (under 40mph) averaged over the journey. Would we be ticketed or charged for that, was my question.”
On the old tickets, there was a footnote that anyone spending more than 18 hours on the turnpike would be charged the full end-to-end toll. I assume that the rule is still there, even if the verbiage isn't.
1 March 2007
at 2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
“If you're really serious about that, you have to acknowledge that a very high percentage of people lack the ability to learn to drive really well. I'm guessing we'd need to reduce the number of licensed drivers by half or more to accomplish that.”
Darn.
1 March 2007
at 4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sunshine_noise (Anonymous) says…
This isn't an innovative idea it's highway robbery. I'll just not take that road and would enourage other not to do so as well. Then let KU get their money from somewhere else.
1 March 2007
at 4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JayCat_67 (Anonymous) says…
How much of the extra money will be put aside to repair the turnpike toll collector when Mr. Grumpy decides to jump through the window at him after he finds out he has to pay an extra $5 for speeding. Seriously, how is this enforced? Does the driver actually get the ticket at the time s/he leaves the turnpike? I guess the fee could be billed directly to the K-Tag users, but for those paying cash, once the ticket leaves their hand, there is nothing to connect it to the driver or the vehicle. I suppose the toll collector could take down a plate number and bill it that way, but they are not trained law enforcement officers. I have the feeling that the only question to be asked in court would be, “Are you sure you got the correct plate number?” before it dismissed. Or, could these things even be considered moving violations? What would be the process for disputing them? I'm thinking there'd be more money spent just trying to enforce this than would actually be generated. Kudos for thinking outside the box, but I think we should pass on this one.
1 March 2007
at 4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
A few relevant quotes from Ronald Reagan:
“Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
––––
He might have read those lines— but who really wrote them?
1 March 2007
at 4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sunshine_noise (Anonymous) says…
You know I have come to realize that those who sit around these tables and make these sort of stupid laws have nothing else better to to with their time and no one to really notice them. So they somehow worm their way into these poltical pow-wows and dream up this crap then go home and think they've contributed some worthwhile. Ha!!
1 March 2007
at 5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
compmd (Anonymous) says…
I'm a little disappointed only one person here has taken issue with this because of due process. The Turnpike Authority is made enforcer, judge, jury, and collector in this scenario. You have no rights to appeal (what, yell at the toll booth lady?) and the Turnpike Authority has no requirement to defend their actions other than say “distance over time equals speed, buddy.”
jrlii, speed limits are as artificial as antiestablishment activists want them to be. Don't listen to them. Ask a few civil engineers about this. As all of us in Lawrence know, road quality and road materials vary widely. Other factors including width, area (residential, highway), crowning, and drainage are all taken into account along with materials and quality to develop a preliminary speed limit. It is after that a traffic analysis can be done and modifications made.
1 March 2007
at 6:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
So if I like do 120 MPH between here and KC, how much extra are we talking? I can see the bumper stickers now, “I KU facilities, I speed on the Turnpike!”
BTW, the speed camera's are coming. Placed on bridges and overpasses they measure the speed of the car, take a picture of your tags, and mail you the citation. And for the Perry Mason's and Matlock's out there, the owner of the car is assumed to be the driver and responsible unless they point the finger at someone else who admits to being the true offender.
Yes I know, the State's burden of proof will be lighten, but the amount of additional revenues is going to be too much for the State to pass up.
2 March 2007
at 7:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
laughingatallofu (Anonymous) says…
Hey,
I think that the Honorable Representative's idea is just awesome.
If I want money to fund repairs at our Regents Universities, I'll just go as fast as I can on the Turnpike. At least I know where my money will be going going. If the Legislature decides how to use my taxes, well, you know how that turns out.
And if I wreck and kill myself (and take a couple of more people with me), it won't matter. The great State of Kansas can just bill my sorry dead hind-end.
I hope that you all are able to see my sarcasm.
Rep. Haley obviously has too much time on his hands (at our expense, by the way). I will, nonetheless, refrain from calling him a horse's *ss.
2 March 2007
at 7:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…
hawkperchedatriverfront clucked “Wanna go for a test drive Kathleen Sebelius? The “hawk” will meet you at the Gage Blvd turnpike exit on Sat nite at 10pm.”
Which would be impossible, given that there is no “Gage Blvd Turnpike Exit.”
sleepylady and topside concur on the point that “why have a toll road at all? give it back to the state!
why should we have to pay a toll to drive on the Interstate Highway???”
The answers to these questions, in part, can be found at http://www.ksturnpike.com/kta/kta.html Besides, the State is limited by statute in the miles of roads it can have. If KDOT took over the Turnpike, it would have to give an equal number of highway miles to cities or counties. (I'm trying to remember where I heard that last bit…I think it was when I was in high school a number of years back and an engineer from KDOT came to do a Career-Day speech.)