On Thursday the bipartisan leadership of the US House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced its $500 billion blueprint for federal transportation programs over the next six years. In addition to creating new rail and transit subsidies, the proposal introduces new roadblocks for state looking to convert existing free roads into toll roads. Committee Chairman James L. Oberstar (D-Minnesota) and Ranking Member John L. Mica (R-Florida) agreed that legislative consideration of the proposal should move forward this Wednesday. Oberstar’s proposal represents a 53 percent increase in spending over the previous authorization level and will require significant increases in revenue generated. Oberstar lashed out at a suggestion from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that Congress should hold off on action so that the expected vote on raising gas taxes would be delayed until after the midterm congressional elections.
“We don’t have time [to wait] for eighteen months,” Oberstar said. “That puts a Damocles sword of uncertainty over the future of transportation. It is unacceptable. We are open to negotiation with the White House, but they have too come across the divide and talk with us. We are a separate, distinct and independent body of government coequal with the executive branch and expect to have a partnership in shaping the future of transportation.”
The proposal consolidates or terminates 75 federal programs into a series of new offices that determine how federal gas tax receipts will be spent. Many of the new offices are designed to meet Obama Administration non-highway priorities, including an office that will redesign streets to cater to the needs of non-motorists. New priorities such a bus lanes will be mandated through the use of “greenhouse gas reduction” quotas.
“The Office of Livability will establish a focal point within the Federal Highway Administration to advance environmentally sustainable modes of transportation, including transit, walking, and bicycling,” the plan’s executive summary explained. “This office will encourage integrated planning, linking land use and transportation planning, to support the creation of livable communities . . . . The Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with DOT, will establish national transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.”
The tolling industry is already gearing up for battle after the blueprint proposed to repeal the laws currently used to impose tolls on federal aid highways. These include the Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot programs, the Road User Fees Field Test, Value Pricing Pilot program and the Public-Private Partnership pilot program. The blueprint, however, does not end tolling. Instead, it creates the Office of Public Benefit to restrain its use to narrowly defined circumstances.
“To protect the integrity of the nation’s surface transportation system and the public interest regarding trade and travel, the federal surface transportation program requires strengthened public protections regarding highway toll projects and PPP agreements,” the proposal stated.
The blueprint explained how it would end a number of common tolling practices. Money collected from motorists could not be used to supplement spending on projects outside the toll road, other than nearby road and transit projects. Private companies would not be allowed to prevent improvements on nearby free roads through “non-compete” contract agreements with state transportation officials. Details about tolling proposals would have to be made available to the public before being finalized. A report would have to be made on the effect of traffic diversion on nearby streets and subsidies for “low-income travelers” would have to be implemented.
“introduces new roadblocks for state looking to convert existing free roads into toll roads.”
I’d like to know what the carbon footprint of a toll booth looks like. All those cars, SUVs, and tractor trailers having to stop – or at least slow down – then accelerate again it must generate a Hugh amount of extra CO2.
Office of Livability? Office of Public Benefit? nye horosho, comrades.
… “Office of Livability” ??? Must be a Democratic administration.
I misread the headline as “US House Wants More Transit Spending, Fewer Trolls.”
jmo> I don’t know about where you live, but almost nobody stops here to pay tolls. Most locals have ipass….there used to even be a 50% discount to use ipass, but I think that doesn’t exist anymore.
I’d like to know what the carbon footprint of a toll booth looks like. All those cars, SUVs, and tractor trailers having to stop – or at least slow down – then accelerate again it must generate a Hugh amount of extra CO2.
It’s reasonably considerable. Less than the CO2 and emissions cost of congestion on a road that would be even crowded without tolling, though.
Tolling is perfectly reasonable on a thoroughly congested road. It’s ridiculous on a road without congestion, sure.
The bill may plan to continue the recent (since 2007 in the transportation bill and the stimulus) practice of transferring General Fund monies to highway spending, rather than increase the gas tax in the out years. One thing is clear– the plan plans to spend far more money than the current gas tax will bring in, just like the previous bill. (That’s why we had the 2008 “emergency” transfer of general funds.)
The plan, of course, is that the spending goodies are popular, whereas paying for things is not. So we’ll pass them now without deciding how to pay for them, and then raising taxes of whatever source to pay for them in a year or two when the Trust Fund runs out will be a fait accompli.
“Tolling is perfectly reasonable on a thoroughly congested road. It’s ridiculous on a road without congestion, sure.”
California waves some tolls for carpoolers … but only during rush hour! That helps make rush hour just that much worse.
I’d love to see California convert all carpool lanes to congestion-priced lanes. Also, open the lanes to everyone. That way someone with 3 people in the vehicle pays only 1/3 that of a solo driver, who can’t split the bill with anyone else.
And they are going to get the money by picking it off the money tree.
I’d love to see the design of the bus lanes (i.e. are they completely separate from general traffic lanes?) and some study to show it reduces CO2. I remember in the 1990’s a bus strike in London had everyone moaning about how horrible the traffic would be. It turned out the traffic flowed better than ever without all those buses in the way.
I think they should spend some of that money on better traffic signaling, too. Anything that reduces stops and idle time of cars is bound to reduce fuel usage, while being cheaper to implement than completely new roads or rail systems.
All this is being done for a crock of BS known as “man-made global climate change”. Geezelouise.
johnthacker : Less than the CO2 and emissions cost of congestion on a road that would be even crowded without tolling, though.
People who need to get from Point A to Point B don’t suddenly disappear just because you build a toll road. Instead of driving 10 miles to B on the now-tolled freeway, this means the poor people will drive 15 miles on Main Street to get to B, idling at dozens of stop lights. That means lots more NOx, particulates, etc. (i.e. real pollutants, only nitwits care about CO2)
The arguments in favor of toll roads are farcical.
I was once a toll collector on a state toll bridge, and the carbon footprint is bigger than the Jolly Green Giant’s. The state (CA) put air quality sensors in tollbooths, and the air was so bad it would have cost a quarter-million per booth to pump fresh air in them. They dropped the retrofit idea.
The current highway financing is pay-as-you-go, the work is done after enough gas tax money has been collected to pay for it. New toll roads are like financing your house. Add your monthly payments times 360 and you’re paying 2-1/2 times the purchase price.
With private toll roads, it’s worse. Not only does the toll revenue have to pay back the loans, but maintenance must be paid, and the private owner requires a decent after-tax profit.
The worst of all is a government agency, like the one running the Massachusets Turnpike. It’s revenue becomes a cash cow for politicians, financing one project after another, in addition to providing high paying jobs for politicians no longer in office.
Lorenzo:
Which bridge? Goldengate, Bay Bridge, etc.? Was it even in the Bay Area? As I stated in a prior post, I find it hard to believe that the huge tolls on the Golden Gate are really necessary for the upkeep of the bridge. As the construction was paid for by the tax payers, that was the stated purpose for the toll, originally.
It is way, way past time to raise the gas tax and start indexing it for inflation.
Tolls on long standing structures like the Golden Gate bridge are collected far in excess of what is required to maintain the structures. Tolls collected on the bridge are used to subsidize local bus and ferry boat services:
http://goldengate.org/organization/ProjectedBudgetFY07-08.php
You can also check out the budget for the New York Thruway, where once again far more is collected in tolls than is used to fund maintenance of the thruway.
http://www.nysthruway.gov/about/financial/2009-budget.pdf
One of the many problems with toll roads is that there are huge additional expenses involved in setting up the toll taking infrastructure and maintaining it. A goodly portion of the money collected is used to collect the money.
People who need to get from Point A to Point B don’t suddenly disappear just because you build a toll road. Instead of driving 10 miles to B on the now-tolled freeway, this means the poor people will drive 15 miles on Main Street to get to B, idling at dozens of stop lights. That means lots more NOx, particulates, etc. (i.e. real pollutants, only nitwits care about CO2)
Nice line, but false. Your assumption is that increasing the price of something doesn’t decrease its use at all, because driving is a necessity? That is utterly unsupported by data. If that were so, then we wouldn’t have seen such decreases in Vehicle Miles Traveled when gas prices went up.
Now, if you want to argue about the exact price elasticity of demand, fine, we can do that, but you’re simply not arguing in reality. Tolling on I-95 doesn’t divert all the traffic to US 1, as a look at congestion will show. Some people may switch routes, when possible, but people actually do take fewer trips or rearrange their schedule.
Tolling that charges the same toll when the road isn’t congested has little point, yeah.
New toll roads are like financing your house. Add your monthly payments times 360 and you’re paying 2-1/2 times the purchase price.
Yes, only if you completely discount the time value of money. You’re not really paying 2.5 times the purchase price in any real sense. Or else please loan me $1 million and I’ll pay you back exactly $1 million in twenty years time.
I think they should spend some of that money on better traffic signaling, too. Anything that reduces stops and idle time of cars is bound to reduce fuel usage, while being cheaper to implement than completely new roads or rail systems.
This is certainly true. Better traffic signaling is one of the cheapest and most cost-effective ways to reduce fuel usage and pollutants.
With private toll roads, it’s worse. Not only does the toll revenue have to pay back the loans, but maintenance must be paid, and the private owner requires a decent after-tax profit.
I tend to view the requirement that a road be able to make a profit a good thing, not a bad thing. It helps ensure that you don’t get useless bridges that are only being built because the locals aren’t paying for them.
The current highway financing is pay-as-you-go, the work is done after enough gas tax money has been collected to pay for it.
That was the old highway financing. The new highway financing under the current Congress (and the previous one) is apparently to go ahead and approve the projects, run out of money in the Highway Trust Fund shortly into the bill, and then have emergency transfers of funds from general funds.
I love arguing with data. The FHWA annual totals show VMT peaked in 2007 at 3.018. The low-point is 2009 at 2.915. The difference? 3.4%.
So raising the price of gas reduced traffic by 3.4%. B.F.D. But wait, we aren’t even comparing apples to apples to get that tiny figure. Two things are happening.
1. High gas prices mean people don’t want to drive because they have no alternative to avoid the extra cost. This is not the case with toll roads because people can avoid the extra charge by taking residential streets or Route 1, etc.
2. The VMT drop isn’t solely due to gas prices eliminating “unnecessary” trips. Unemployment and the economic death spiral mean (a) truckers have no goods to deliver, and (b) workers have no jobs to go to. GDP and VMT chart nicely together. A price spike has much less effect in a good economy.
Sure, a handful of people will stay home because of tolls, but like all attempts by government to engineer behavior, tolling is an utter failure. Even if we grant that tolls force 3.4% of people to stay home and not drive at all, that 3.4% is easily offset by the increase in real emissions from idling at traffic lights and taking longer routes. This is even more true since nitwit traffic engineers have decided to use signals as “traffic calming” devices that deliberately create congestion — especially near toll roads.
The net effect is more pollution. For data, you can look at studies of the congestion tax in London that came out after Boris was elected (Red Ken obviously spun the previous data). Real measurements of pollutants showed no change or slight increases.