Legislator tries for state tax credit compromise on Penn Turnpike's tolling I-80 but war goes on
Posted Fri, 2007-12-07 23:35
A Pennsylvania politician Scott Conklin from the middle of the I-80 corridor (Dem, Centre Co) says it's "time to be realistic" and to "find something practical" to address his constituents' concerns about tolling I-80. He's filing a bill in the state house to provide a tax credit of up to $500 per year for toll bills on I-80 as verified by E-ZPass electronic toll accounts.
Conklin, who represents the State College area told us today: "I didn't vote for it but Act 44 (providing for tolling of I-80) is now state law and it looks as if tolls are coming. What do we do? A lot of my constituents drive one section on the I-80 to get to work and home again. 20 or 30 miles. They are people who earn $7 or $8 an hour. For them tolls could easily amount to ten percent of their income. A lot of them would stop
driving on I-80 and they'd be on the side roads to avoid the tolls. That isn't in anyone's interests. It will mean higher maintenance costs for local counties, more traffic on less safe roads. How do we deal with this?"
The tax credit should be linked to E-ZPass, Conklin says, because you want to encourage electronic tolling and because the commuters he wants to help are most likely to get the transponders.
He isn't joining colleagues from the area in protesting tolls and writing to the US Government against approving tolls?
Conklin says: "I respect their position but I don't want to say say No to anything without having an alternative. The state needs to raise revenue. I've been in business. I'm a fiscal conservative. I go back to thinking it's not enough to be against something. You need to have a better plan."
His better plan is tolls with a big tax credit for locals. Conklin thinks tolls on I-80 won't change the routing of the longdistance truckers or cause them difficulty.
"They are paying tolls in New Jersey, at the state line, in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois. The only place they don't pay tolls is Pennsylvania (on I-80). They'll factor it in. Most of them will drive clear across the state (now) and not fuel up once. They'll buy their fuel and pay their tax where it is cheaper."
He thinks they should contribute to the upkeep of I-80 with tolls. He doesn't know how much the tax credit would cost the state, but says that has to be researched. It is not a simple calculation because you have to allow an offset for traffic not diverted, he points out.
And the Turnpike Commission hasn't yet come up with a map showing tolling points. There are to be about ten across the state.
Toll them all
US Rep Paul Kanjorski, another politician representing communities along I-80 (the Scranton area in the northeast of the state) was initially inclined to argue that the US Government shouldn't go against the state's
decision to toll I-80. He has modified his position now. He says the state should toll all the major highways, that it is unfair to single out I-80 for tolling while leaving, I-81, I-70, I-78, I-79 and I-90 untolled.
Kanjorski is working on a letter to US sec of Transport Mary Peters arguing that it will be discriminatory to toll I-80 alone.
Red flag of no quarter
Most of the politicians along the I-80 are fighting the Turnpike Commission under Santa Anna's blood red flag of "No quarter." Day in and day out they are pounding on its walls. Just some of the major bombs follow.
Dec 4 eleven state senators released a letter to US sec Peters in which they question the Turnpike Commission's "truthfulness." They say the Turnpike Commission's claim in their application that a number of hearings on tolling I-80 were held is "not true" and that "no hearings were held..."
They say that tolling I-80 was proposed only to "fend off Governor Rendell's proposal to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike under a public-private partnership."
The legislation allowing tolling I-80, they note "received significant opposition." (19 to 30 in the state senate and 79 to 124 in the state house.) They say Act 44 was passed under intense pressure and financial crisis because of the lack of a state budget and the furloughing of thousands of state employees.
"The proposal has ... generated significant bipartisan opposition in Congress leading to legislative actions that would prohibit the implementation of this plan..."
They say that the overwhelming majority of local people are negative about the proposal. And they sound off about the supposed "disastrous" economic effects of tolls.
Here is the letter in full.
Republican leaders asks US to block tolling so longterm lease can be considered
Republican leader in the Pennsylvania house Sam Smith has written US sec Peters to "seek your non-support" for the state's application to toll I-80. His letter is far more a statement of technical legal objections to US approval of tolling on I-80.
He says the Turnpike Commission (PTC) and PennDOT are "undoubtedly circumventing the intent of the federal
law."
"The PTC has only discussed types of improvements" and asks "Will the FHWA allow the (Turnpike) Commission to toll the road with little or no improvements, other than the tolling gantries?
"In the Conference Report for HR 2400(TEA 21), Section 1216(5)(A), it states that all toll revenues received from operation of the toll facility will be used only for: debt service; reasonable return on investment of any private person financing the project; and any costs necessary for the improvement of and the proper operation and maintenance of the toll facility, including reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of the toll facility.
"It is clear that the PTC proposal calls for toll revenues that exceed the actual cost of the facility improvements and the long term maintenance. The PTC has stated that they will get around this federal provision by claiming that the lease payment to PennDOT represents debt service on this road. I believe that they are clearly circumventing the clear intent of the Federal law because of the purpose for the lease, that being to provide excess revenues to PennDOT to subsidize mass transportation."
Lease would provide larger and more immediate income stream
“Since Pennsylvania is now evaluating proposals to lease the current turnpike, I further oppose the application because a Turnpike lease is anticipated to generate a far larger and more immediate revenue stream to help meet the state’s mass transit, highway and bridge needs.”
Personal aside
Email to Travis Windle, staffer to congressman English, a leader of the anti-PTC/I-80 campaign who lobs political shells at the Turnpike daily:
Travis: what with the Christmas season and all I'm feeling sorry for my buddy JB over at the Turnpike. I'm trying hard to think of something I can write to cheer him up in what is supposed to be a festive time.
I hope as a matter of decency you guys will let up on him for a bit.
Goodwill to all and all that.
P Samuel
Reply: Ha. Afraid despite it being the Christmas season, we won't be relenting, Peter!
COMMENT: Apparently Santa Anna's rules apply in this fight. No quarter.
TOLLROADSnews 2007-12-07
A Pennsylvania politician Scott Conklin from the middle of the I-80 corridor (Dem, Centre Co) says it's "time to be realistic" and to "find something practical" to address his constituents' concerns about tolling I-80. He's filing a bill in the state house to provide a tax credit of up to $500 per year for toll bills on I-80 as verified by E-ZPass electronic toll accounts. Conklin, who represents the State College area told us today: "I didn't vote for it but Act 44 (providing for tolling of I-80) is now state law and it looks as if tolls are coming. What do we do? A lot of my constituents drive one section on the I-80 to get to work and home again. 20 or 30 miles. They are people who earn $7 or $8 an hour. For them tolls could easily amount to ten percent of their income. A lot of them would stop
driving on I-80 and they'd be on the side roads to avoid the tolls. That isn't in anyone's interests. It will mean higher maintenance costs for local counties, more traffic on less safe roads. How do we deal with this?"The tax credit should be linked to E-ZPass, Conklin says, because you want to encourage electronic tolling and because the commuters he wants to help are most likely to get the transponders.
He isn't joining colleagues from the area in protesting tolls and writing to the US Government against approving tolls?
Conklin says: "I respect their position but I don't want to say say No to anything without having an alternative. The state needs to raise revenue. I've been in business. I'm a fiscal conservative. I go back to thinking it's not enough to be against something. You need to have a better plan."
His better plan is tolls with a big tax credit for locals. Conklin thinks tolls on I-80 won't change the routing of the longdistance truckers or cause them difficulty.
"They are paying tolls in New Jersey, at the state line, in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois. The only place they don't pay tolls is Pennsylvania (on I-80). They'll factor it in. Most of them will drive clear across the state (now) and not fuel up once. They'll buy their fuel and pay their tax where it is cheaper."He thinks they should contribute to the upkeep of I-80 with tolls. He doesn't know how much the tax credit would cost the state, but says that has to be researched. It is not a simple calculation because you have to allow an offset for traffic not diverted, he points out.
And the Turnpike Commission hasn't yet come up with a map showing tolling points. There are to be about ten across the state.
Toll them all
US Rep Paul Kanjorski, another politician representing communities along I-80 (the Scranton area in the northeast of the state) was initially inclined to argue that the US Government shouldn't go against the state's
decision to toll I-80. He has modified his position now. He says the state should toll all the major highways, that it is unfair to single out I-80 for tolling while leaving, I-81, I-70, I-78, I-79 and I-90 untolled. Kanjorski is working on a letter to US sec of Transport Mary Peters arguing that it will be discriminatory to toll I-80 alone.
Red flag of no quarter
Most of the politicians along the I-80 are fighting the Turnpike Commission under Santa Anna's blood red flag of "No quarter." Day in and day out they are pounding on its walls. Just some of the major bombs follow.
Dec 4 eleven state senators released a letter to US sec Peters in which they question the Turnpike Commission's "truthfulness." They say the Turnpike Commission's claim in their application that a number of hearings on tolling I-80 were held is "not true" and that "no hearings were held..."
They say that tolling I-80 was proposed only to "fend off Governor Rendell's proposal to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike under a public-private partnership."The legislation allowing tolling I-80, they note "received significant opposition." (19 to 30 in the state senate and 79 to 124 in the state house.) They say Act 44 was passed under intense pressure and financial crisis because of the lack of a state budget and the furloughing of thousands of state employees.
"The proposal has ... generated significant bipartisan opposition in Congress leading to legislative actions that would prohibit the implementation of this plan..."
They say that the overwhelming majority of local people are negative about the proposal. And they sound off about the supposed "disastrous" economic effects of tolls.
Here is the letter in full.
Republican leaders asks US to block tolling so longterm lease can be considered
Republican leader in the Pennsylvania house Sam Smith has written US sec Peters to "seek your non-support" for the state's application to toll I-80. His letter is far more a statement of technical legal objections to US approval of tolling on I-80.
He says the Turnpike Commission (PTC) and PennDOT are "undoubtedly circumventing the intent of the federal
law.""The PTC has only discussed types of improvements" and asks "Will the FHWA allow the (Turnpike) Commission to toll the road with little or no improvements, other than the tolling gantries?
"In the Conference Report for HR 2400(TEA 21), Section 1216(5)(A), it states that all toll revenues received from operation of the toll facility will be used only for: debt service; reasonable return on investment of any private person financing the project; and any costs necessary for the improvement of and the proper operation and maintenance of the toll facility, including reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of the toll facility.
"It is clear that the PTC proposal calls for toll revenues that exceed the actual cost of the facility improvements and the long term maintenance. The PTC has stated that they will get around this federal provision by claiming that the lease payment to PennDOT represents debt service on this road. I believe that they are clearly circumventing the clear intent of the Federal law because of the purpose for the lease, that being to provide excess revenues to PennDOT to subsidize mass transportation."
Lease would provide larger and more immediate income stream
“Since Pennsylvania is now evaluating proposals to lease the current turnpike, I further oppose the application because a Turnpike lease is anticipated to generate a far larger and more immediate revenue stream to help meet the state’s mass transit, highway and bridge needs.”
Personal asideEmail to Travis Windle, staffer to congressman English, a leader of the anti-PTC/I-80 campaign who lobs political shells at the Turnpike daily:
Travis: what with the Christmas season and all I'm feeling sorry for my buddy JB over at the Turnpike. I'm trying hard to think of something I can write to cheer him up in what is supposed to be a festive time.
I hope as a matter of decency you guys will let up on him for a bit.
Goodwill to all and all that.
P Samuel
Reply: Ha. Afraid despite it being the Christmas season, we won't be relenting, Peter!
COMMENT: Apparently Santa Anna's rules apply in this fight. No quarter.
TOLLROADSnews 2007-12-07
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 11sensLtr.pdf | 305.39 KB |