Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ghfromaltonbay
My questioning of the constitutionality has to do with the fact that all of these roads are interstate (federal) highways and therefore I questioned why 1 state can penalize non-residents on federal roads. None of the other states along the northeast corridor penalize non-residents.
|
Didn't respond to your first post on constitutionality as I thought you may have been using hyperbole to make a valid point....
Anyway, even though the roads we are talking about are designated (in most part) as part of the national highway system, the roads are in most cases maintained largely by the State in which they are located with funds received in part by the toll system.
Yes, many of the roads were built with and are still partially maintained by federal grants. However, a significant amount of maintenance, upkeep and expansion is borne by the residents of the State in which the road may be located along with assistance by the user in the form of tolls.
Remember, the Troopers that patrol the highways, the road crews that clean, repair & plow the ways and the State agencies that coordinate repairs, upgrades and future expansion do so at the State level with State supplied funding.
And since each State in the northeast corridor have differing ways of raising State revenues using vastly different methods of taxation, each State is free to approach the toll issue as it's lawmakers believe is fair and equitable.
Just as it is not unconstitutional for each State to have it's own varying method of general taxation to sustain State government (even though each State government recieves untold financial assistance from the federal coffers) it is not a violation of someone's constitutional right that these same States approach road toll levies from different perspectives.
Skip...