1. The proposed toll between the Stateline to Milwaukee on I-94 is a federal interstate. The federal government just spent millions to redo much of that stretch. Under current federal law, most or all of that aid would have to be paid back to the feds. How is this being paid for? Long term debt? Has this been factored into the toll solution? 2. Future federal aid will no longer be available for projects related to that stretch. Generally, only 10% is funded by the state. With tolls, the state is on the hook for 100%. Has this 10 fold increase in expense been factored into the toll solution? 3. Any revenue generated by the tolls used for other projects will eliminate any federal funding for those projects. Has this been factored into the toll solution? 4. Tolls will include new infrastructure costs that will be funded solely by the state. Has the increase in new infrastructure been factored into the toll solution?
This idea has been floating around in other states. They have come to the conclusion that the cons far outweigh the pros. One only needs to look at Texas Tollways 130, which was privately funded and constructed, as is being proposed in Wisconsin. They went bankrupt in March 2016, 10 years after being awarded the contract.
A crisis scenario is being presented for our state roads and that there is not enough revenue to support our roads. Then why is the legislature taking on new costs that will eliminate a revenue source? How is funding 10% considered a problem but 100% not? What will the toll solution do to our long term debt?