Hey you forgot some stuff.

First off, $4.80 in 2012 is unlikely to be the same as $4.80 in 2006, but that's not the most important thing.

Second, tolls don't just make people think twice about taking a trip, it also makes them think twice about taking a trip alone. After all, only the car is tolled- not the passengers. Fill up a carpool and voila! suddenly you're back down to paying only $2.50 a day, not to mention the huge amount of money you save on gas.

Yeah. Wait a minute. If you're using 4 gallons of gas a day, in today's terms- that's probably no less than $12 in gas a day. It's anyone's guess what that will be in 2012. But say you carpool- so you only pay about a quarter of that, $3 a day.

So: carpool gas ($3) + carpool toll ($2.50) = $5.50 a day.

Or: individual gas($12) + individual current toll ($2.75) = $14.75 a day.

Yowzas. Not to mention the obvious benefits to traffic congestion and the environment. (Could you imagine if there were 1/4 the cars on the road?!)

So, maybe tolls in themselves aren't necessarily going to save anybody any money. But if the tolls are high enough to force people to give up what they consider "the convenience" of driving their own car each day- make it more convenient to carpool- then you end up saving a huge amount. You end up saving traffic, time, the environment, gas, and money.

I don't think the math is exactly right. For a toll-only road, wouldn't it be the cost of the toll versus driving a roundabout, longer route? And for toll lanes, you would need to factor in some sort of monetary equivalent for time/comfort.

It still might not equal the toll itself, but I imagine the difference might be small enough to get people to pay the toll.

Tolls also have the added benefit of aiding the environment and lessening the need for maintenance/construction of new roads. And I completely agree with Jared- if commuting cost that much, car-pooling would skyrocket (as would Metro usership, as if that hasn't already peaked!)

All the more reason not to live anywhere near a toll road.

When development along the Greenway increases, perhaps the tolls will stabilize because the would be more people using the road. I remember when I first moved to the area about 30 years ago and went to Dulles airport for the first time. It looked like I was driving in a forest, not a building in site until you got to the airport. Not today! Perhaps the same will be true of the Greenway.

I also wonder what reason they have for increasing the tolls? Also, they have to figure that with every increase, a certain number of people will stop using the road. So as fares increase, revenue may actually remain the same or slightly increase/decrease. Sounds like the start of a never ending spiral.

All the environmental plusses aside, you are certainly NOT paying for convenience as anyone living in Ashburn can tell you.
The toll booths back up ALL THE WAY to Ashburn at peak morning rushhour. So here you are paying big bucks to ride on a road with as much stop/go traffic as a free road! Just wait til the politicians allow another 20,000 homes to be built in all the open land along the Greenway!

As a frequent user of the Dulles Toll Road, I find that tolls are quite a burden when they are on the best commuting route. It seems unfair that drivers on these routes pay a daily toll AND the taxes to support the routes they do not take, while others pay only the taxes. I agree with the comments about the benefits of carpooling, driving less, etc., and that tolls or taxes can encourage these behaviors, but it is unfair that some pay tolls to get to work and others do not. And why aren't the tolls considered taxes and deductible. They do go to pay for a good that is public in all but administration. I also have a problem with the tolls on 95. Virginia seems to be about the only state on the east coast that doesn't chargre a toll to use the federal highway. I think I paid about $70 rountrip in tolls to drive from VA to Boston. It's similar to the ridiculous charges on rental cars and flights that tax visitors to pay for state services.

My problem with tolls is they make roads a business. And they can discourage carpooling.

Two stories from California about toll roads.

1. Off the back gate of Camp Pendleton they put up a bridge to be paid for by tolling the users. Problem is since it was off the back gate of Pendleton, the majority of the users were soldiers. Finally, the base commander pushed the issue and "miracle of miracles" the city found the tolls collected had already paid for the bridge about six months earlier. Now there is no toll, but six extra months of tolls? Sign me up to collect those.

Second, I've heard, I don't know this story first hand, when Fluor put HOT lanes in California, enough people started slugging/carpooling that they had to increase the tolls for carpools along with those for the regular users.

Toll roads are a business with a captive consumer. And just like we've seen with the big oil companies. Those can be very profitable if you are the one controlling the price and supply.

I've heard that if the HOT lanes go into effect that there will be a charge to drive the already VDOT installed HOV lanes from day one. Hmmm, again, let me start collecting to use something that was built with public tax dollars, I like that idea. HOT will be lukewarm after a year but hopefully laid to a cold dead rest long before due to somebody finally thinking this through.

What NoVA needs is not more highway miles but better public transportation.

And the Federal government should be the major supplier of funds since they are probably the biggest loser of quality man hours due to the horrible traffic we have today. And it's only getting worse. My commute has expanded by an extra two hours a week in the last four years. And telecommuting isn't an option for me.

Better public transportation along with better planned roads is the answer. Not HOT lanes.

I don't mind a toll when it's levied by a government entity - presumeably to pay the cost of building/maintenance of a road or bridge - but why a private company that is also looking for ways to squeeze X% profit above and beyond the building/maintenance cost factor. If the government owns a toll road and tolls go up unfairly, at least voters have a recourse come election time. There is no recourse when it is a private company with decades-long leases - they are completely insulated from the public.

I don't think the HOT lanes in VA would be such a big deal if the state was keeping control of them. They could used to increase capacity on the HOV lanes while raising money for further expansion, particularly on 95/395. I can't comprehend why they need a private company to come in and do what VDOT supposedly should be doing. I could understand a private company building a new tollway, but not taking over an existing road.

In my view the perfect example of a legitimate toll road is the New Jersey Turnpike. The road does not get any funding from tax dollars--the tolls and any revenue from leasing space in the service areas to the petrol companies and the restaurant operators are the only sources of revenue for that road. So if you drive on it, you pay for it; if you don't, you don't. Seems like the fairest method by far, and we know that the revenue is put back into the Turnpike for roadway improvements and the like (look at the new Exit 1 toll plaza at the southern end of the road--probably the best improvement they ever made). I don't see how anyone can complain in that scenario.

But as for a road like the Greenway, I suppose what it boils down to in the end is what your time is worth to you (assuming that the road is faster, of course). It's like flying on Concorde (well, prior to October 2003, that is). If you're not in a hurry and the money matters to you, then you fly on Mr. Blobby the slow 747 and take 8 hours to get to London. If you're in a hurry and it's more important that you get there than save a few dollars, or if you are billing your client for the travel time, then you fly on Concorde and take three hours 20 minutes to get to London.

The question on tolls becomes at what point does the cost of the toll outweigh the time saving. I think that it will be at a higher price point than many people may surmise, given that the DC area is not exactly poor. Consider that when the original Dulles Toll Road first opened everyone said how expensive it was because it charged 85¢ to go from the Beltway to Route 28, and compared with the New Jersey Turnpike or the New York Thruway that is a very expensive toll per mile. But everyone quickly decided that it was worth the 85¢.

The Dulles Toll Road provides an example of paying tolls to pay for a route the motorists aren't using. The tolls went up to fund the construction of Metro to the airport. People who drive to the airport don't have to pay anything. Where is the logic in that?

When the tolls on the Dulles Toll Road were effectively doubled last year, I decided to cut my use of the toll road in half, effectively keeping my toll costs the same (with a few exceptions). So now, instead of taking the Dulles toll road to Tyson's Corner in my morning commute from Reston, I now go through Sunrise Valley Drive to Lawyer's Road to Vienna to get there. Yes, it may take longer and may use up a bit more gas, but for me, it's worth it. Plus, the drive to Vienna is prettier.

The biggest problem with the concept of toll roads is that the powers that be want to charge more during peak times. That makes a whole lot of sense, charge me more money to sit in more traffic! As long as there are non-toll options, toll road should only be considered viable options for thru travelers (Turnpikes, tunnels, and bridges), not single lanes and commuter clogged routes. Tolls on backed-up roads should be free because the toll has done nothing to improve the road to meet demand!

Stuart, the theory is that as the lanes start to clog up, you raise the toll, which will cause some people not to use the toll lanes/road and thus theoretically reduce the congestion. The choice is then at what point the individual driver decides that the toll is too expensive. It's a nice idea in theory. Whether it will work in practice is another question.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.