Feds say Pennsylvania's application to toll I-80 inadequate - pose long list of questions

USDOT have told Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) and DOT that their application to toll I-80 does not meet the requirements for even conditional approval. And they have posed four pages of questions they say must be answered by state authorities if they wish to continue with the application. The questions are sharply worded, suggesting the feds consider the state application to be a shoddy piece of work.

Sets of questions start with a quote from relevant sections of federal law to indicate the application must meet the terms of US law.

First, they say the application does not sufficiently specify the improvements planned for I-80 or provide any schedule.

They ask how the requirement in the PennDOT lease to the Turnpike Commission that the Turnpike simply maintain the present quality of the facility can be squared with a list of reconstruction and rehab requirements.

Reject the contract's provision that only federal requirements be met

The Feds sharply reject the statement in the PennDOT-PTC lease concession contract that capital improvements on I-80 will be limited to those required by the FHWA, saying: "It is not the FHWA's role to establish the necessary level of improvements."

They say their role is only to assess whether the state's proposed improvements comply with US law's requirements for tolling an interstate.

They say they will need to see a proposed capital improvement schedule with "a substantially greater degree of specificity" than provided. They ask for a copy of the "State of Interstate 80" report.

They want evidence of consultation with local authorities including discussion with them of the placement of toll points and the amount of tolls proposed.

Sharp questions about low priority being shown to interstate maintenance in PA

A legal requirement to demonstrate how present funding is inadequate to maintain I-80 provokes sharp questions by the feds about the low priority Pennsylvania has been giving to interstate maintenance:

- asking why US interstate maintenance funds have been transferred for other purposes

- why they are concentrating their 'recissions' or corrective reductions in overall US grants to the state on interstate maintenance

- their rationale for maintaining an unobligated balance of over $310m of interstate maintenance funds

Specify proposed toll rates and tolling points

They ask for schedules and finance plans including toll implementation schedule and projected toll revenues and how these take into account the interests of local regional and interstate travelers.

Lease payments to be made for tolling I-80 are not specified separately in the concession contract, the feds say, and must be spelled out. They need to explain how the lease payments can be made and the rehab and reconstruction schedule met.

Contradictory statements questioned

They ask pointedly: "How can the PTC issue $610m in bonds in 2009 for I-80 when section 12.1 of the lease agreement caps the PTC's annual bond issue for the entire Turnpike system at $600m?"

And also how a statement made in the application that tolls will only be used for I-80 can be reconciled with the lease concession contract providing that they be available for the entire turnpike system.

And they ask whether the lease agreement contemplates use of I-80 toll revenues to pay debt unrelated to I-80 expenses.

They conclude asking for an explanation of how payments by the PTC to PennDOT using I-80 revenues were derived and how they can be considered as operating costs.

Memorandum DC to Harrisburg FHWA

The list of questions is in the form of an attachment to a Memorandum from King Gee an associate administrator for infrastructure to the FHWA representative in Harrisburg PA. The Memorandum says the Pennsylvania application doesn't contain the required information specified in FHWA guidance. Only when that is provided will an assessment be made of whether I-80 is eligible for tolling under the feds' interstate system reconstruction and rehabilitation program.

The memo refers to "some confusion concerning the status of the application" adding: "Please clarify to PennDOT and PTC that their application has not been approved" and that a technical review will be needed and that the state authorities must address the questions raised.

It also says: "Please stress to PennDOT and PTC that we are not approving or denying their application at this time."

But the state is not getting the conditional approval that would "reserve a slot" for PA/I-80. That is a reference to the law's limit of three approvals for tolling under the rehab and reconstruction program, two of which are allocated. The third has been promised priority to states which applied for a Corridors of the Future program.

Cover letter: please revise...

There is also a cover letter from the FHWA representative in Harrisburg to the PennDOT head stating flatly that the application does not yet meet requirements for Phase I provisional approval, asking for the proposal to be revised to address the comments made in the attachment.

Turnpike chief says questioning expected

The AP quotes Turnpike CEO Joe Brimmeier as saying that the Feds questioning of the application was to be expected. 

"This is a huge, huge project and for anybody to think that there would not be numerous meetings and numerous exchanges of information then that person has never done a deal or a project of this magnitude."

see the PTC's case: http://www.paturnpike.com/i80/

COMMENT: We think the PTC will have trouble coming up with adequate answers to the FHWA questions. Act 44 and the Turnpike's plans to I-80 - approved by the state legislature in an end of session budgetary crisis - won't fly. 

TOLLROADSnews 2007-12-13 14:45 17:30

EARLY VERSION:

Feds reject tolls for PA/I-80 - BREAKING NEWS

The Federal Highway Administration has rejected Pennsylvania's application to toll I-80 under the interstate reconstruction and rehabilitation program, we understand.

A letter to the Turnpike and state DOT says that the state application does not adequately meet the test laid down for the Interstate reconstruction and rehabilitation program. It says that the state has not demonstrated that toll revenues would be devoted to the upkeep and improvement of I-80. It says it cannot see how lease payments to the state DOT for I-80 can properly be described as operating costs.

Readers should bear in mind the judgment of Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission CEO Joe Brimmeier (Philadelphia Inquirer Nov 21) that TOLLROADSnews relies on "heresay, unnamed sources, suppositions, impressions and theories" - he forgot the gossip, prejudice, vendetta, bigotry and dementia.

More when we get it.

Here is a copy of the US letter to Pennsylvania, 7 pages as pdf (before we have even read it)

TOLLROADSnews 2007-12-13 12:00