On April 6, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration declined to approve Pennsylvania’s application to place tolls on Interstate 80. In its press release FHWA said, “The Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program requires that revenue from tolls be used only to improve the tolled facility, in this case I-80, and not be directed toward other state funding needs or transportation projects elsewhere in the state, as is the case in the Pennsylvania application.”
Reacting to the decision, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell said "People understand that if they want safe bridges, good roads, and potholes eliminated, you cannot wait for the pothole fairy to do it – you’ve got to pay for it." Governor Rendell also predicted that under the next federal surface transportation bill, "They will lift the ban on tolling federal highways because there is no appetite for raising the gas tax right now, and this is one of the only ways for us to maintain these highways.”`
Commenting on the decision, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, “I care about the transportation needs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We have provided $1.4 billion in Recovery Act funds to Pennsylvania over the last year to jump start the economy and put people back to work. We based today's decision on what is allowable under federal law.” However, on April 7, speaking to ICAT, a transportation conference hosted by Bradley University and Caterpillar, Inc. in Peoria, Illinois, Secretary LaHood noted the Federal Highway Trust Fund has run out of money and that tolling and PPPs are the wave of the future. He repeated his support for tolling during the question and answer session.
Rounding out this picture of fierce diversity on the subject of tolling federal-aid highways, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar held an unusual hearing on March 26 during which he rejected the notion of tolling interstate highways and “existing roadways that have already been paid for by the users.” (See TollroadsNews). Which makes us recall this statement by Ed Regan of Wilbur Smith Associates during IBTTA’s 2005 Future Forum: “Federal restrictions on the ability of states to put tolls on existing interstate highways is one of the biggest barriers to that rebuilding process. So the federal government, while not supplying solutions in terms of funding, still refuses to get out of the way and allow tolling as an option for the states to use.”
So, what do you think? What is your view on the prospects for tolling U.S. interstate highways? Will the Congress ultimately see things as Governor Rendell does and lift the ban on tolling interstate highways? Will Americans stomach the possibility that un-tolled interstate highways will now be tolled? What will make or break this shift in federal policy?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The Interstate Highway system is reaching its life. It was originally designed for 72,000 Lbs. maximum weight, lower volumes than are being experienced now and for a 20 year life span. Maximum weights are now 80,000 (approved by Congress) traffic has been greater than estimated and many of the sections are well beyond 20 years. To defer ultimate reconstruction many sections have been overlayed, milled and resurfaced and in some areas reconstructed. The bulk of the Interstates are however reaching the point that they must be rebuilt.
ReplyDeleteInterstate 70 in Missouri was one of the first Interstates constructed under the 1956 federal funding with 90% federal and 10% state dollars. The federal statutes and regulations leave maintenance of the Interstates to the states. I-70 is now nearly 50 years old and is in need of reconstruction. In a state like Missouri or any of the other Western states that have small amounts of state gas tax revenue and large mileage of Interstates, reconstruction using present funding mechanisms will not occur. Since 87% of all freight dollar value, (not weight or volume) is shipped on the highways and predominantly Interstates, it is in the interests of the federal government, the economy and the people in general that funding be established.
No one wants to be the tax man only the political controller of the distribution. If the federal government will unilaterally allow tolling on the Interstates to reconstruct, the system can be rebuilt. The stickler comes when considering what happens to any revenue beyond that needed to reconstruct the Interstate. If left to the states, the distribution to various modes and transportation projects may not be in the best interests of the nation overall. States might become creative in borrowing on expected revenues to solve various transportation needs. There is therefore some legimate role for the federal government to ensure the use of excess funds are in the national interest and to ensure that Interstate highways are maintained to a high standard first. The end result must be a prescribed set of rules on how the toll revenue can be spent short of Congressional pork barrel politics.
The argument is not whether to allow tolling, that seems to be an unavoidable conclusion, the issue is how the funds will be used and allocated with in the states.
One last note, the states are thinking that it is acceptable to access tolls when most of the Interstate travelers are "out of state" and then use the funds within the state for transportation. From a federal prospective this might not be acceptable.
Posted by Mike Heiligenstein, Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority
ReplyDeleteI am generally opposed to the tolling of interstates. I think the DOTs should use their gas tax money from the feds to maintain their trunk systems, and use tolling for expansion of capacity. This could include new (even managed lane) capacity on interstates. But to just slap tolls on interstate highways to fund rural or other projects is just wrong – and will prompt a huge backlash. Those facilities, for the most part, were built with federal dollars and I could see interstate commerce being impacted by selective tolling regimes. Filling potholes in front of the state capitol and the County Courthouse with dollars from commuters and truckers on the interstate, from which no benefit is derived, is wrong. It’s politically minded.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond.
Posted by Geoffrey S. Yarema, Nossaman LLP. Mr. Yarema is a member of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission.
ReplyDeleteThe political barriers to tolling existing interstate capacity are just as real and monumental as raising the gas tax. In the short to mid term the more likely scenario is an acceleration of the trend to toll new capacity within existing interstate rights of way. The Ft. Lauderdale I-595, the Ft. Worth North Tarrant Express, and the Dallas I-635 are all recent examples of blending existing nontolled interstate upgrades with new tolled lanes. I project many more such projects which will benefit all concerned with less political friction. In reauthorizing the highway program Congress should follow the recommendations of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission and give the states more leeway to utilize this tool.
Posted by Robert Darbelnet, President and CEO, AAA
ReplyDeleteHistorically, AAA has opposed the use of tolls and has favored gas taxes as the primary means to fund the federal transportation program. Our position on tolling has evolved over the years and although we remain opposed to tolling Interstates, we generally support tolls for new capacity. Today you will find a number of AAA clubs across the country supporting new toll roads and bridges where circumstances show it is the best option to move the project forward.
At the same time, we remain cautious when considering any new tolls. Toll rates and use of the revenue generated from tolls need to be publicly evaluated and understood. Toll revenues should benefit the users of the facility or the specific corridor.
In response to the specific blog question about what will make or break a shift in federal policy toward tolling, I think getting the public to pay more in any form -- be it taxes or tolls or a VMT fee – will come down to developing a transportation program the public can understand and proposing a funding system that makes sense. That will entail: 1) making the case for transportation – why it is fundamental to our daily lives and economic vitality; 2) reforming the transportation program to ensure it aligns with clear national priorities and is more accountable to the public; and 3) being up front with the public about how the program will be funded and where the money will go.
We’ve already publicly indicated our support for a federal gas tax increase (contingent upon the right reforms), and believe we can make that case to our members and the public. If the status quo stalemate on transportation authorization continues, what may “make” the Interstate tolling issue is further deterioration of Interstates due to structural/maintenance issues. What may “break” it is a scenario under which Interstate roads are viewed as the cash cow for all other transportation needs in the state. There are real questions of fairness and equity if users of one road are asked to carry a significant portion of the state’s transportation funding burden.
I think that the point is being missed by some folks. Tolling and using the money somewhere else outside of the corridor is what the Feds have a problem with now. If Pennsylvania were to fix up I-80 and charge enough to pay for toll collection, maintenance and a capital improvement plan, I'm thinking the Feds would say OK. This alternative choice would relieve PA of the obligation to maintain this major cross-state highway, allowing the diminishing transportation dollars available to be spent elsewhere.
ReplyDeletePosted by Marty Stone – Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority
ReplyDeleteAs noted, the potential tolling of interstate highways has recently been discussed as a possible solution to state highway funding needs in Pennsylvania. But, applying traditional tolling or some form of variable congestion-pricing to interstates has long been suggested by some of us in the toll industry as an alternative to full-blown VMT fees (or at least as a first step in the direction of VMT charges).
Therefore, answering the question about possible tolling of the interstate should be undertaken as part of the much larger conversation about creating a sustainable source of revenue for surface transportation. Tolling the interstates is not a decision that should be made in a vacuum. It must be discussed as part of a range of solutions that all have different technical, operational and political hurdles related to meeting the challenge of our gas-tax funding crisis.
First, we must have an understanding of the potential revenue that interstate tolling would generate along with the revenue that possibly could be produced by the other tolling solutions: traditionally-financed toll roads, HOT lanes and other price-managed concepts, national and local VMT fees and any other bright ideas for addressing our funding needs.
We then must understand the technical, operational and financial requirements imposed by the need for national interoperability because tolling interstate highways would require some national system to create and exchange toll transactions and collect the revenue in a highly reliable and efficient manner.
And, of course, placing tolls on previously non-tolled interstate highways would be a very steep political hill to climb. And, other funding options like VMT fees might even be more difficult. Thus, for tolling of the interstates to be accepted as a reasonable solution, elected officials and their constituents must be able to compare the implications of all of the potential approaches to roadway funding in an open public conversation.
And, IBTTA is perfectly positioned to help frame that national conversation. I believe that defining the revenue possibilities of interstate tolling (and other potential funding approaches) along with the technical, operational, financial and institutional needs for building national interoperability are appropriate initiatives for IBTTA’s new Technology and Interoperability Committee. The committee will be comprised of toll agency and industry representatives with the technical and institutional understanding and experience to investigate ideas like interstate tolling. The results should enhance the public discussion about these problems and how the toll industry can provide effective solutions to address the transportation funding challenges facing us here in the US and around the World. The committee’s efforts should also help determine IBTTA policies and positions in support of transportation decision-making at the highest public and private levels.
Thanks for the opportunity to join the group -- I realize that The Highway Users and IBTTA have different views on I-80 but we share enthusiasm on some core values, including the need for safe and efficient roads. I enjoyed reading the previous comments and was pleased to see that my thoughts are in-line with many other posters.
ReplyDeleteOur group was opposed to the I-80 tolling application, because it was a toll on existing, non-HOV Interstate capacity and Gov. Rendell made it clear that the plan was designed to force out-of-state drivers to take care of internal Pennsylvania needs, in lieu of a needed fuel tax increase. The primary supporters of the idea were legislators who were located in districts far from I-80, who were safe from the votes of those who use that road. The idea of using I-80 tolling to backfill SEPTA deficits and fund highways hundreds of miles away from I-80 was obviously problematic to my members. In addition, there should have been no doubt that Pennsylvania's application was clearly a violation of TEA-21's 1216(b), as the Secretary rightly concluded.
However, I do agree that we are vastly underfunding our highway needs and existing fuel taxes have been woefully inadequate in building new capacity. Since 1980, we've added about 4% new capacity to our highways, while vehicle miles traveled has more than doubled. Clearly that is inadequate. We need new capacity and in many cases, tolling new lanes and new roads may be the only way to get new capacity built. We also support converting underutilized HOV lanes to HOT lanes so that they can be better utilized -- but feel the money raised should be reinvested back into adding capacity to the tolled road. We also support easing congestion on toll roads by moving to more highway-speed cashless tolling.
Highway Users members remain concerned about diversion of both fuel taxes and tolls and want to ensure that those who are tolled are the primary beneficiaries of the toll.
Pat's most important question concerns the current federal restrictions on tolling interstates. I also do not think Congress will lift these restrictions in the next highway authorization bill, particularly if Chairman Oberstar remains in charge of the House T&I Committee. As another poster pointed out, many of the existing pilots remain underutilized so it's also possible that some of these may be modified or eliminated.
The question: “Will the Congress ultimately see things as Governor Rendell does and lift the ban on tolling interstate highways?” is not exactly correct. There is no “ban” by Congress on tolling existing toll-free general purpose lanes on Interstate highways. Since 1991, Congress has authorized a pilot program that allows such tolling. The program, called the Value Pricing Pilot Program, currently provides for such tolling authority to 14 states and New York City. The Program does not have any difficult restrictions on toll rates or use of toll revenues. The 14 states and New York City are eligible to set whatever toll rates they deem are necessary. Excess revenues not needed for operation and maintenance, interest and return on investment of a private partner may be used for any transportation purpose under Title 23. In other words, capital costs for highway and transit facilities anywhere in the state may be paid for using excess toll revenue. Toll revenues may also be used for operating costs for bus services operating on priced facilities, if they are an integral part of the value pricing project.
ReplyDeleteThe only requirement is that toll rates vary to manage demand and reduce congestion on the Interstate highway. The presumption is that the Interstate highway is congested, and there are certainly stretches of congested Interstate in Pennsylvania.
In spite of this relatively open tolling authority under the Value Pricing Policy Program, there have been no takers for full pricing of all lanes of Interstate highways. And it is not clear that Pennsylvania considered this approach either.
Posted by Bob Poole, Reason Foundation (Part 1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteHow and Why We Should Toll the Interstates
There is one overwhelming reason why we need to figure out a feasible way to permit tolling of America’s Interstate highway system: the need for massive investment to rebuild and modernize this most critical portion of our highway network.
The total investment needed to reconstruct and modernize this system has not been quantified, but several previous studies suggest the magnitudes involved. The Cambridge Systematics study of major bottlenecks identified 233 freeway interchanges that need redesign and reconstruction; I recently estimated the cost of doing that at $128 billion—but the benefits would likely exceed that cost by a factor of ten. A Reason Foundation study several years ago estimated that adding networks of HOT lanes to the (mostly Interstate) freeway systems of the 19 most-congested metro areas would cost $98 billion. These two numbers don’t include the basic cost of reconstructing major portions of the Interstate system as they reach or exceed their original design life of 50years.
Since it’s highly unlikely that either Congress or the states will increase fuel taxes to the levels necessary for such investment, it’s going to have to come from tolling. But now we must confront the political opposition. The main obstacle to such a proposal in recent years has been the trucking industry’s view that removing the federal ban would open Pandora’s box of “erecting toll booths on the Interstate.” That wording reflects the genuine fear that if all restraints on tolling were lifted, states might simply start charging monopolistic tolls on existing, unimproved Interstates, giving truckers (and shippers) all pain and no gain. Pennsylvania’s recent attempt to toll I-80 and use the proceeds primarily for a large array of statewide transit and non-Interstate highway projects is a good illustration of what we should not advocate.
But if an integral part of tolling for reconstruction were to create separate truck-only lanes designed for up to 150,000 lb. gross vehicle weight (vs. the current federal limit of 80,000 lbs.) and long “turnpike double” rigs, truckers and shippers would be getting very real value added for their tolls. And if all the lanes on the rebuilt Interstate were tolled, there would be less resistance by truckers to being restricted to truck-only lanes, with the obvious safety benefits that would flow from that policy.
Phased-in tolling of long-haul Interstates would also be a major step toward phasing out fuel taxes and phasing in highway charges based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), one of the strongest recommendations of the Infrastructure Financing Commission.
Posted by Bob Poole, Reason Foundation (Part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteHow and Why We Should Toll the Interstates
To win the support of truckers and other highway users, there would need to be strong federal conditions on such state-by-state conversions. It would need to make certain that tolling (and privatization, if a state opts to go that route) could be implemented only in connection with a major reconstruction and modernization of an Interstate corridor. And the toll revenues would have to be dedicated to the costs of rebuilding, operating, and maintaining that Interstate (including a reasonable return on investment). And fuel tax monies—federal and state—freed up by no longer being needed to repair and maintain the tolled Interstate would need to continue for much-needed other highway and bridge projects in that state.
To avoid concerns over the “Balkanization” of the Interstate system, there would still need to be uniform federal standards for lane widths, overhead clearance heights, etc. And it would also be appropriate for the U.S. DOT to be charged with ensuring nationwide electronic tolling interoperability (both technically and financially) by a date certain, perhaps the end of the next reauthorization period.
A good starting point for this measure would be the existing Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, enacted in TEA-21 and continued in SAFETEA-LU. Even though no state has yet succeeded in making use of it, the dire circumstances we now face in highway funding make an expansion or generalization of this pilot program an idea whose time has come.
Posted by Neil Tolmie, N3 Toll Concession(Pty)Ltd
ReplyDeleteIn South Africa we have been tolling existing roads since 1984; today we have some 2500 kilometres of tolled highways. In the early days we had legislation that stipulated that every tolled road should have an alternative road to it; this is not viable nor sustainable in any society;the alternative road requirement was scrapped in around 1996. Yes there is public opposition but it is manageable, very often it becomes a matter of either upgrading or no upgrading, this at the cost of the country. The tolls are set to recover the cost of the required upgrading, maintenance, operational and funding costs. It does not cover the existing infrastructure so you are recovering the costs of the improvements not the full infrastructure cost; THE LATTER IS VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND. You could, therefore, argue that although you are tolling an existing road, you are tolling new infrastructure.
Finally toll roads are never paid for as there will always be maintenance and capacity improvements in line with traffic growth.
Please note that without POLITICAL WILL none of the above is possible.
We as an industry subscribe to the argument that a toll is not a tax, but a user fee charged to deliver a specific service resulting in value for the customer. This is where I think the State of Pennsylvania went astray in its argument to create a funding source through the tolling of I-80.
ReplyDeleteA legislative leader in Florida once defined for me the following: "A tax is a charge on a person or property to provide funds for the payment of government expenses without a return or special benefit to the property or person. It operates as an obligation and in no sense depends on the will of the one upon which it is imposed." In applying this definition it is clear the State of Pennsylvania intended to use the revenue it could have generated from the tolling of I-80 as a tax to pay for other government obligations. By using the toll revenues to fund other priorities, Pennsylvania created a captive tax payer which is unfair. If Pennsylvania returned all of the toll revenue to the I-80 corridor, one could then make the argument that all users of I-80 received value for the toll they paid.
I agree with the majority of comments previous to mine that it is not the best of times to talk about increased taxing of existing roadways, it is the wrong policy. We, as an industry, need to strive to help DOT's understand and utilize user fee finanacing for transportation facilities and help them realize the long term benefits of creating transportation financial engines. Allowing the creation of policy as proposed by the State of Pennsylvania is something Congress should not entertain.
HI Pat
ReplyDeleteWell I guess the first question should be why would want to toll the Interstate traffic?
If it were to pay for the overall, national, systems/network costs of transportation that the gas tax currently supports, it would not be enough money.
If it were to reduce congestion by pricing lower income travel cohorts off the network, then that would result in economic reductions to the GDP and create economic justice issues
In addition, the diverted traffic from the tolling to achieve either of the above objectives would likely cause more NETWORK congestion that it would "solve" on the interstate system.
The very notions associated with these nominal objectives are not well seated in an operational and theoretical understanding of urban regional development and mobility systems.
We have created (by our policy and funding framework) a congestion manufacturing machine by creating classes of transport systems users who pay nothing for their use of the system and are free to treat it as a free good--with all the consequent issues that follow from that structural deformation of the transport market. We have enabled these non paying users to freely substitute trips into their production function for those items which actually cost real money.
As I would see it, from a number of perspectives, this is not a good use of tolling for any of several reasons, some of which are: it will undermine general economic productivity by adding un-necessary “access taxes” to the economy’s output; it will further distort capital flows within the infrastructure market and within the firms using infrastructure as a free good; it will add further dis-economies/inefficiencies to the allied industries based on the spatial distortions created by this deformed locational decision framework embodied in our current market structure and enhanced by proposals to increase driver exactions via interstate tolling; etc.
If we want to see increases in productivity, output and income at the national accounts level and household level and regional accounts levels and enterprise levels, we need to see some real, bottom-line, entrepreneurial, innovative (pub and pvt) thinking in how to grow the “pie”. This will be done by essentially increasing competitiveness and increasing productivity and increasing enterprise performance across a range of enterprise measures These vmt-taxing/road-pricing, interstate-based strategies are reductive strategies, and more imaginative uses of the network are possible and NECESSARY and should be engaged.
This notion is based on the misconception of infrastructure as a “consumer good” with the driver as the consumer. The consumer goods approach to generalized infrastructure funding that is behind Interstate tolling (and transport funding and planning in general) does not and can not cut it.
To address the nation’s routine, systems-financial requirements, we should move policy toward requiring ALL the USERS of access/mobility systems to pay for their use, the money will be there; the mkts will work efficiently, and economic competitiveness will be advanced in the process of creating a politically and economically viable strategy.
We are failing ourselves with our lack of leadership, imagination and courage.
I see some solutions to our current mess that could include tolling NEW capacity, but tolling existing interstate capacity is not the best answer to our needs that I see. I do not even think it is a good answer.
There are better ways.
Paolo (Paul) Pezzotta, AICP
President
Integrated Transport Planning, Inc.
15 Smithbridge Road
Chester Heights, PA 19017-0183
Tel: 610 220 3868
To: Paolo Pezzotta
ReplyDeleteYou have written a very colorful critique of the idea of tolling interstate highways in the U.S. But I have no idea what you mean when you write that tolling will “distort capital flows…and add further dis-economies…to the allied industries based on the spatial distortions created by this deformed locational decision framework.” Oh my! It sounds like a bad thing – and scary too – but also very opaque. You suggest “there are better ways” to fund our infrastructure but you don’t describe what those better ways might be.
We know that the U.S. federal government will run a deficit of more than $1 trillion in the current fiscal year and it will probably do the same next year. We also know that we have under-invested in our road infrastructure for decades – our roads are crumbling and pollution and congestion are on the rise. Does “the better way” involve the federal government providing funds to rebuild our infrastructure by adding further to the already rapidly expanding deficits? That doesn’t sound like a workable plan to me or one that will gain much political support. Help me understand what the better way might look like.
Maurizio Rotondo - AISCAT
ReplyDeleteA lot has been said and I would not enter the debate on whether interstates should be a source or revenues or not, or on how to spend the tolls etc; the interstates system has its history and reason to be, of which I do not know enough.
I see though what it is happening in old Europe, where roads that used to be toll-free and State operated are becoming tolled, somewhere for commercial traffic only and somewhere for all vehicles.
The process is slow, a trade level is searched for (lower vehicles taxes etc) the debate is hot on the use of the revenues, but little by little it is becoming a matter of "when" rather than on "if".
This is happening in nations where tolls where allowed for additional capacity only, as well as in nations where tolls where utterly despised.
By the way, those networks were set up more or less in the same period when the interstates were built, thus they endure what Hal Worrall described, fatigue caused by traffic well beyond any design specification.
Is this development right? I do not know. is it necessary? At the present time perhaps yes.
Hi Pat
ReplyDeleteI am happy to address your comments, Pat, but it is best to start from a shared foundation of understanding that the current model does not work-especially with respect to your topic subject, i.e., tolling the interstate system.
I started off by noting that congestion pricing strategies as applied to the interstates would create more congestion than it would address. THat is a notion that many in the infrastructure business do not understand. Even many in the toll business do not get this point. (they do not have to since their client's issues end at the property line. Unfortunately, those of the larger market do not) If we could get the industry and its allies on Wall St to understand this one point and move on, we would be advancing the dialog a good deal by making new intellectual space and adding a lot of minds to addressing the opportunities for creating new value as a basis for funding as opposed to the unworkable approach of taxing consumer surplus.
In addition, as I noted interstate tolling will not deliver the funding levels that are tossed around as an incentive to the creation of national vmt funding or interstate funding strategies. The work behind those estimates in several imporatant dimensions is simply not correct. There will be significant trip diversion, and the pricing will disproportionately impact lower income cohorts. So costs will be higher by having to include wear and tear on secondary roads and having to include needed transit substitutes. There will be significant political blow back from these effects.
There is more to these issues than I can cover here, but I think I made my point.
I then moved on to note that there is a very significant class of transport users who generate the majority of trips to support their enterprises BUT who pay nothing to support the systems' costs. This is true of tolled and non tolled systems.
To correct this problem, one needs a different business model for each system. True, some tolled systms can be built today (but I would seriously suggest one really check real risk issues) based on tolled revenues, but they are simply cherry picked systems and the rest of the needed systems are not toll supportable.
To correct this enterprise failure, one needs to vertically and horizontally integrate other aspects of the spatailly distributed economic/mobility activities into the tolled systems enterprise framework and more income will be generated from an increase in value that is created.
That is all there is to it.
It is simply about value creation being the first activity in systems development followed by value capture from those parties which benefit.
There are fiscal approaches and enterprise approaches. I prefer market based enterprise approaches (some of which include tolls), but both have a valid role and both can be part of a sound PPP formated enterprise with both "Ps" being active ongoing partners in the enterprise gain sharing over time and space.
The issues of deformation of capital flows, which I sm pleased if it was as it seems to have been sn entertaining comment in some way for you, has to do with the market effects of having only a selected minority of demand generators/users being called upon to pay for all of the use created in the market. Classical theory as well as current econmic-geographic theory show that framework to result in the sorts of structural issues related to funding levels, deferred maintenance, substandard systems and the like that the USA transport market is quite expectedly experiencing and will likely affect the operations of other more newly developing transport markets to the degree that they rely on the same approaches as we have.
They can avoid our mistakes and move forward more profitably if they make the required structural adjustments
There are better ways
Paolo (Paul) Pezzotta, AICP
President
Integrated Transport Planning, Inc.
15 Smithbridge Road
Chester Heights, PA 19017-0183
Tel: 610 220 3868
Posted by Daniel Dornan, KPMG LLP
ReplyDeleteTel: (407) 563-3372
Any Interstate can be tolled if a bridge or tunnel on the highway requires significant rehabilitation or replacement, whereby users of the rebuilt or replaced bridge or tunnel can be tolled, and the toll rate can exceed that required to fully support payment of the debt service on the facility, according to U.S.C. Title 23, Section 129 (see below). This clause is the one exception under the Federal government’s prohibition of placing tolls on previously non-tolled Interstate highway facilities. If applied broadly whenever Interstate bridges and tunnels need replacement or reconstruction, this could enable the whole Interstate system to be tolled by focusing on toll collection at replaced or rebuilt bridges and tunnels.
One may ask why Section 129 has not been used to date and the simple answer is the political challenge of dealing with the expected opposition from those used to riding most interstates without a user charge. In the long run, tolling the Interstate appears logical, necessary, and even inevitable given the lack of viable funding alternatives and the deteriorating condition of the nation’s highway system – but also difficult to accomplish when the history of free access must be overcome. However, as described below, the mechanism is there to do this - all we need is a few pioneering states to get the proverbial ball rolling and others will likely follow on a selective corridor-specific basis at first.
See the following for a description of the pertinent clause:
U.S.C. Title 23, Section 129 – Tolling Agreements – This section of Federal-Aid funding legislation lays out provisions for granting Interstate bridges and tunnels exemption from the prohibition of tolling existing facilities on the Interstate System. The following summarizes the provisions of Section 129, including the third option which could be used to enable sponsoring agencies to place tolls on a bridge or tunnel for rehabilitation or reconstruction, subject to a toll agreement, even though it is on the Interstate System and has not been tolled before:
o Section 129 spells out what can be tolled and not tolled on the Interstate and other highway systems in general. Under 23 U.S.C. 129, Federal participation is allowed in the following five types of toll activities:
- Initial construction (except on the Interstate System) of toll highways, bridges, and tunnels, including the approaches to these facilities;
- Reconstructing, resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating of any existing toll facility;
- Reconstruction or replacement of free bridges or tunnels and conversion to toll facilities;
- Reconstruction of a free Federal-aid highway (except on the Interstate system) and conversion to a toll facility; and
- Preliminary studies to determine the feasibility of the above toll construction activities.
o The portion of Section 129 related to tolling rehabilitation or reconstruction of Interstate bridge or tunnel facilities is not a pilot program and has no limitations in terms of number of projects. In essence, it is a loophole in the law governing the tolling of Federal-Aid highway facilities for bridges and tunnels only and therefore it is not a competitive program like some of the programs cited earlier.
o If a State plans to reconstruct and convert a free bridge or tunnel previously constructed with Federal-aid funds to a toll facility, a toll agreement under Section 129(a)(3) must be executed. There is no limit to the number of agreements that may be executed.
Thanks for opportunity to join group. I realize that Highway Users and IBTTA have different views on I-80 but we share enthusiasm on some core values, including need for safe and efficient roads. I enjoyed reading the previous comments and was pleased to see that my thoughts are inline with many other posters.
ReplyDelete