Facing massive budget shortfalls, many of the nation’s governors are turning to toll roads as a solution to their short-term spending needs. The National Governors Association last month dispatched a letter to US Senate committee leaders in the hopes of dissuading them from limiting the abilities of states to impose tolls on existing interstate freeways.
“Fiscal pressures, burgeoning capacity needs, and escalating operating and maintenance costs are forcing states to pursue innovative financing options to complement traditional financing tools,” Governors Gary R. Herbert (R-Utah) and Bev Perdue (D-North Carolina) wrote on behalf of the NGA’s Economic Development and Commerce Committee. “Governors support the development of flexible and innovative financing mechanisms that strengthen the mobility goals of the states. We oppose any federal restrictions on the ability of the states to pursue public-private partnership arrangements to address our unique infrastructure needs.”
In particular, the governors are worried about provisions in the draft transportation reauthorization bill that would place mild limits on the current system used to impose new tolling projects. Section 1504 of the draft bill, for example, requires that companies involved in the “public-private partnership” perform a full cost-benefit analysis that takes into account the risks involved. In current practice, toll deals between state officials and tolling companies are struck behind closed doors, with no opportunity for meaningful input or review by the public. The congressional plan would mandate such information — including proposed toll schedules — be placed online before the contract is finalized. The most controversial provision that governors traditionally look to conceal from the public, the non-compete clauses, are prohibited. Under these contractual arrangements, states are prohibited from expanding or improving free roads so that congestion forces frustrated motorists onto the pay routes.
“State and local authorities, as the principal owners and operators of the surface transportation system, must retain flexibility to determine the appropriate level of private sector participation in their surface transportation programs,” the governors wrote. “Therefore, we urge the Senate to avoid including these House provisions in any Senate draft.”
The Department of Transportation under Secretary Ray LaHood has also been using the gas tax dollars of motorists to promote tolling, and the White House has advanced an infrastructure bank proposal specifically designed to fund tolling projects. The combined effort is designed to overcome the initiative of federal lawmakers who have succeeded in enacting prohibitions on the conversion of existing freeways into toll roads.
[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]
Stopping spending and wisely using the money already there are NEVER on the table.
Sure they are… just not on anyone’s table in capital hill. There are too many stoopid voters to realize this, and those folks have the same say that we do. Sad, huh.
I’m all for it if the money generated goes back into the entire road network, which hasn’t been the case most of the time.
Just say no to charging tolls on existing roads. I benefit from toll roads connecting the northern suburbs of Dallas, paying money to save time.
http://www.ntta.org/AboutUs/Roadways/SystemMap.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Texas_Tollway_Authority
Those roads would have taken many extra years to complete if they were dependent on federal and state government financing. The compromise is drivers pay tolls in exchange for rapidly constructed NEW roads with politically incorrect distribution in the suburbs. Adding tolls to existing roads already paid for by fuel tax revenue upsets the balance of this compromise.
Tolls slow down traffic and create more bottlenecks when you have to drive through them. When traffic is heavy it gets worse. If you want to charge those who drive on your roads a gas tax is the best platform b/c it is the best measure of road use – such as driving more frequent or driving bigger trucks that cause more road wear. It also is helpful in getting people to drive more fuel efficient cars than any other legislation. Change demand and supply will follow (not the other way around).
Taxation efforts should be transparent. This is not.
Sadly 30 years of poison politics make any kind of obvious tax toxic. On the other hand it’s just as hard to cut spending, too. And you can blame everyone for that in one form or another.
If the state floated bonds to fund the highway, then the state has something in the game.
Otherwise, the state doesn’t own the interstate. It’s owned and paid for by the citizens of the US. The state doesn’t get to just seize a public asset as though it were some kind of petty warlord. Else states could seize dams and declare ownership of water supplies, and so on.
If the state wants to buy the interstate from the citizens of the US, let it make an offer.
How then can so much of I-90 east of Chicago be subject to state tolls? I suspect the relationship isn’t so black and white.
Yeah, to echo advance_92, tell that to the governments of New Hampshire and Delaware (and their citizens) who thoughtfully charge tolls on I-95, despite the fact that it meanders 9 and 13 miles respectively though their “states.” Granted, I b!tched about this two weeks ago, but still…
Tolls are terrible way to raise revenue due to that a significant portion of the money collected is used to support the cost of collecting tolls. It is much better to raise gas taxes since that increases revenue without increasing government cost.
But I’m against that too.
Wow, politicians push for more ways to rob other people! That surely never happened before!
I guess “Fiscal pressures, burgeoning capacity needs, and escalating operating and maintenance costs” is what the latest tax funded, $100,000 PR firm report advised as being the magic words; for swaying just enough progressive drones into yet again cheering the thugs on, as they sweep in for one more round of “Rob My Neighbor.”
I’m fortunate I live in a state with so little in the way of tolls, but there ARE some, some express lanes on Hwy 167 I think are paid and you have to have a transponder thingy on your windshield in order to use it but it is not a required thing so that doesn’t really count though.
We DO, however, have a toll on the new Tacoma Narrow’s Bridge, which only carries eastbound traffic into Tacoma from the peninsula and this new bridge sits along side the old one which carries traffic ONTO the peninsula and no, it’s not tolled as it opened for traffic in 1950 and had a toll for the first 20 years or so and once it was paid off, they dismantled the tolls and its been free ever since, but the reason they built the new one was to simply remove a bottleneck as traffic to and from the peninsula increased to the point that the old bridge would cause backups, it’s only good for 2 lanes in each direction in the old configuration.
There is talk of tolling the new 520 floating bridge over the northern end of Lake Washington and possibly tolling the existing 1-90 to keep the toll price down enough to enable them to pay off the new, wider bridge which will replace a 4 lane (2 in each direction) floating bridge that opened in 1962 and is in need of replacement and expansion and I’m not excited about the prospect, but if it keeps the tolls reasonable and actually is used to pay off the bridge and once done, is dismantled, I’m all for it for that reason only, but just to toll for revenue endlessly, not so much.
Just give up your money and we will not hurt you as much as if you dont.