Massachusetts dithers on Turnpike tolls, Gov muses interstate border tolls

The Boston dither goes on, and on, while the Mass Pike slips ever closer to the precipice. Thursday (Jan 22) the Turnpike board decided to put off a decision on whether to proceed with the toll increases it had voted Nov 14, despite a strong pitch for the extra $100m from executive director Alan LeBovidge, who showed dramatic pictures of crumbing concretework, exposed rebar, deep potholes, and rusted-through structural steel (see nearby).

A decision on tolls was deferred to the next meeting mid-February. Board member Michael Angelini suggested a small stop gap measure to raise an extra $15m to get the Turnpike through the financial year ending June 30. This would provide the legislature and the governor time to find alternatives to higher Turnpike tolls, he said.

Monthly admin fee for transponders

The Turnpike board did approve a proposal by the chairman of the Turnpike Jim Aloisi to raise a few million extra with a 50c/month/transponder administration fee for transponder accounts. There are around 1 million transponders in use in Massachusetts, so the $6/year fee will raise $6m extra.

At the same time the Turnpike is dropping the $25.95 charge for new transponders. With about 15k buying transponders each year at present free new transponders will cost the Turnpike $400k/year.

But if it encourages an increased demand for transponders the measure will cost more.

The new program for transponders will begin Feb 15.

The board heard a pitch from executive director Alan LeBovidge for toll increases. A powerpoint he gave shows a move from a $8.6m profit this year to a  loss of $34.8m next year and a decline in debt service coverage from 1.09 to 0.73.

The UBS swap continues to be threat with a termination liability of $350m to $400m, he said.

LeBovidge presented the case for a capital program ramped up from the present $43m to just over $140m per year.

He showed dramatic pictures of deteriorated structures on the turnpike:

- BU viaduct

- MA128 overpass

- Sumner Tunnel

- Callahan Tunnel

- CANA Tunnels

61 of 87 bridges on the metro Turnpike built in the early 1960s remain without any major deckwork. Of these 21 are structurally deficient rated 4 or less and of these 12 are so bad that only complete reconstruction will suffice. 50 bridges are heading for structural deficiency, and "need immediate repair," LeBovidge said.

"The Turnpike's problems cannot be solved via reform," LeBovidge said. "Substantial additional revenue" is needed or the debt coverage and infrastructure deterioration will continue become unmanageable.

Financial crisis

"Without a stable, predictable and dedicated additional revenue stream MTA's bond rating cannot be restored and the UBS swaps will remain a cloud over the Turnpike."

April through June a minimum of $12m to $15m in extra revenues "is needed simply to avoid a default by the MTA," LeBovidge said, and this leaves no action begun on needed capital restoration.

Minimum capital spending needs an extra $100m/year in revenues starting in July, LeBovidge said in a reference to the problems of the metropolitan portion of the Turnpike.

Legislature

Senate leaders last week sought publicity for a scheme to consolidate various transportation agencies in the state, making the extraordinary claim that this could save hundreds of millions of dollars. They provided no evidence for the assertion. If big means efficient then GM, Citi, USPS would trounce all competition.

Governor muses about border tolls

On Friday the state Governor Deval Patrick mused in a radio interview: "What I would love to see is border tolls at all of the interstate entrances, maybe Route 3 as well. In other words, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York. If we did that right, it would be possible to remove all of the tolls inside of the (state). Maybe you'd keep something at the tunnel."

The border tolls proposal hasn't been seriously studied.

We've searched out traffic counts AADT (annual average daily traffic) on the borders of Massachusetts. The 20 leading border crossings include ten interstates, six US routes and four state routes with traffic volumes ranging between less than a thousand a day and 93k and a total of 746k or 204m/yr.

If tolls depressed traffic by 10% then it would be 184m/year.

A $1.50 toll at these 20 border points would generate about the same $275m toll revenue as the Turnpike currently generates.

Cut out the toll at the six smallest crossings and a 14 border point scheme consists of the same ten interstates, two US routes and two state routes. That has 710k AADT or 194.6m/yr. With traffic depressed by a little over 10% to 170m/yr and a toll of about $1.60 at these 14 points would generate the same $275m/yr.

Further in order to overcome political opposition from frequent users deep discounts would probably have to be offered to locals. So in order to raise the target revenues they'd need standard tolls of perhaps $2.00 to $2.50.

Governor Patrick's move to "do a Delaware"

Shifting the burden of tolls from Massachusetts voters to non-voting out of state residents is clearly the object of border tolls.  It is unclear how much they would succeed in doing that.

Border tolls work for Delaware because it is a small population state that generates less traffic than its neighbors. It is state surrounded by larger states.

Its geography works too. In the northern neck of the state there's a high volume (120k veh/day) of traffic on I-95 passing right through going MD-NJ-PA.

Delaware citizens hardly use the Delaware Turnpike or at least the southern portion where the notorious plaza is located close to the Maryland border.

The great bulk of the traffic tolled at the Delaware Turnpike plaza is completely out-of-state.

It's a perfect beggar-thy-neighbor setup.

Massachusetts looks less promising:

- it's the giant of the region so a majority of the traffic at most of the borders is Massachusetts traffic

- a lot of the border crossing traffic terminates in Massachusetts so border tolls add to Massachusetts costs

- the Turnpike toll plazas already cover two border crossings I-90 at NY border and I-84 north of the CT border so the border toll strategy is already partly in effect

-  Massachusetts is  a small state, barely 80km (50 miles) north to south such that the greater Boston metro area in an economic sense spills over into New Hampshire to the north and Rhode Island to the south so border tolls will affect the workings of daily life of hundreds of thousands of the border straddlers

There seems likely to be strong resistance to border tolls north (toward NH) and south (toward RI) of Boston especially if it is done simply to remove the tolls from people presently tolled west of Boston, and doesn't produce net additional revenue.

Overtures to the Feds

"We have made those overtures to the federal authorities to see whether they would work with us, and they're open to it," Governor Patrick is quoted.

They're open to an application of course, but It isn't clear either that the Feds can approve the substitution of border tolls on interstate highways for turnpike tolls under present legislation.

Tolling an interstate, under present law must generate revenue needed for upkeep and improvements of that interstate or it must be used to manage traffic (congestion pricing).

Gov Patrick appears to simply want border tolls to raise revenues for state roads generally - not permissible as Pennsylvania discovered in its attempt to toll I-80.

Road use charge advocated by state finance commission

An expert transportation finance commission was established by the Massachusetts legislature in 2004. It studied many alternatives and clearly didn't favor border tolls.

The Commission recommended in Sept 2007:

- an 11.5c/gallon increase in the gasoline/diesel tax indexed to inflation

- toll increases on the metro Boston Turnpike and tunnels

- a move to mileage-based charge of 5c/mile (3c/km) on "all major state highways" to raise about $550m/yr net to take the place of western Turnpike tolls (p34, 35)

- investigate public private partnerships for funding

see http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3836 for Nov 14 2008 vote on toll hike

TOLLROADSnews 2009-01-24