Bill to stop tolls on PA/I-80 could hit many interstate toll projects

A federal bill intended to block tolling of I-80 in Pennsylvania by a congressman in the corridor could stymie many other major toll based initiatives to improve mobility. The bill HR1071 filed last week in the US House of Representatives by congressman Glenn 'GT' Thompson (R-PA) is titled "Keeping America's Freeways Free Act."

Thompson is the member for Pennsylvania District 5 which covers a large tract on and north of PA/I-80. (See map nearby)

HR1071 specifies that the US secretary of transportation "shall not permit the imposition or collection of any toll on any portion" of an interstate constructed with use of federal funds that is "in existence on the date of enactment" and on which there is no existing toll at that time.

Tolling of PA/I-80 is still a possibility.

Pennsylvania secretary of transportation Allen Biehler told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (Feb 19) that reauthorization of the federal aid program may open up PA/I-80 to tolling.

Under the existing 50 year public-public concession deal between the Turnpike and the state, the state will receive sharply reduced payments from the Turnpike from July 1 2010 on if I-80 tolling fails to be implemented. Turnpike payments go down from $900m to $450m/year in the absence of tolls on I-80, so the state is under heavy financial pressure to toll.

USDOT rejected the last Turnpike-PennDOT application to toll I-80 because it did not devote toll proceeds to the upkeep and improvement of I-80 itself as required under the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehab program law. Acceptance of the proposal under existing federal law will probably require revising the state legislation (Act 44) and the Turnpike/state financing plan. Or else it will require changes in federal law to liberalize tolling.

Thompson's bill is part of an effort by officials in the I-80 corridor to keep it a tax-supported highway, but it opens a legalistic can of worms.

Implications could be widespread, uncertainty for sure

Cast as a nationwide measure HR1071 could block many ongoing projects - depending on how it is interpreted. At least it would add a whole new element of uncertainty to a whole bunch of toll projects in the planning/permitting/financing pipeline.

It purports to outlaw tolls "on any portion" of a highway "in existence" on the date of enactment.

What's a "portion" and what's "in existence" is a fit subject for Clintonesque parsing on what's sex and what isn't. (see Clinton pics & raunchy wisecracks below AVOID IF OFFENDED)

HOV to HOT?

HR1071 would seem to block conversion of HOV lanes to HOT lanes on interstates as proposed on a major network scale in the San Francisco Bay Area, in Los Angeles and in Seattle WA. With HOV (carpool requirement) there is no toll, but with HOT of course there is a toll collected, triggering HR1071?

Absurdly HR1071 could raise an obstacle to interstate designated highways but not to highways designated as US routes or state routes even though the latter may be built to the same standards and be financed with the same mix of federal and state funds.

Going south out of San Francisco into Silicon Valley, for example, you have the choice of two parallel freeways the "280" in the center of the peninsula and the "101" on the bayshore. Californians have long since dropped the designation prefix (I-, US, state) but the 280 is an Interstate and the 101 is a US route. The 280 HOV-HOT conversion would be caught up in the HR1071 whereas the 101 would be unaffected by it, since the bill defines its tolling prohibitions as on "any highway, bridge, or tunnel on the Interstate system..."

California's planned toll lanes network is a mix of state routes, US routes and interstates, so HR1071 might block tolling on Los Angeles' I-110, I-210 and I-10, but not on US101 and CA60 and on San Francisco's I-280, I-80 and I-880 but not on US101 or CA24 or CA4. And in Seattle the HOV to HOT conversion would be blocked on I-5, I-405 and I-90 but would be alright on WA520, WA522, WA99 and WA16.

Going south out of Minneapolis on I-35 HOT lanes will be built partly by converting HOV lanes to tolls and partly with new lane construction.  Some portions are in existence, some aren't. HR1071 might, or might not block that project, designed as a followup to tolling of the express lanes on I-394 to the west of the twin cities.

Tolls have long been used to finance most major bridges and tunnels on the interstate system. I-80 itself has toll bridges over the Hudson (Geo Washington Br) and Delaware rivers (NJ-PA) and in California's Carquinez and San Francisco-Oakland Bay bridges as well as being tolled through part of Illinois and most of Ohio and Indiana.

In Louisville KY interstate bridges over Ohio River are planned to be tolled as part of rebuilding the downtown bridge that carries multiple interstate designations and a new outer beltway toll bridge is proposed. Would one of the two be barred by HR1071 or both?

In the Seattle area two floating bridges are planned for reconstruction with tolls - one on state route 520 unaffected by HR1071 and the other on I-90, perhaps affected.

What is "in existence"?

It is unclear too whether lane additions would be considered a "portion" of the interstate in existence untolled at the time of enactment of HR1071. If in existence is held to mean in existence as a corridor designed as an interstate, then the toll prohibition would be sweeping indeed.

The rebuild and widening of I-70 planned with tolls through states (IN, IL, MO, KS) would be in jeopardy.

But "portion" could be seen longitudinally, or laterally.

If the portion is seen longitudinally then toll lanes would seem to be barred even on additional lanes being constructed with tolls or say truck toll lanes.

Is existence supposed to mean existence as a roadway corridor designation, or as existence in a construct of asphalt, concrete and steel? If the first then toll financing would be barred completely. If the second then so long as you were doing a complete rebuild and removing everything now physically in existence and replacing it anew it might pass muster under HR1071.

The VA/I-95/395 Express Lanes toll project between the Pentagon and Fredericksburg VA involves a  mix of conversion of existing lanes and additions and extensions. If the pavement is rebuilt as part of the project was it "in existence" at the time of the enactment of HR1071?

That would be a fine issue for lawyers to argue about. There was a lane of the pavement there but the asphalt of the new lane wasn't in existence because they rebuilt down to base.

It is unclear too whether HR1071 would block the construction of new toll lanes where there were none before.

Would it block the Transurban Capital Beltway toll concession project presently under construction but not due to be tolled for about two years in northern Virginia between Tysons Corner and the Springfield IC?

The Beltway's reconstruction will produce 8 tax-supported lanes and four toll lanes.

I-95 is being developed by the Maryland state toll authority to a similar 4-toll/8-tax lanes cross-section here in Maryland from the 95/895 split north of the harbor tunnels up toward the northern outskirts of the Baltimore metro area. (see section below)

Construction is about half done but tolls aren't due to be imposed for a couple of years. Also the project makes no sense unless it is extended with tolls to manage traffic well beyond the present first stage.

What about the North Tarrant Express toll concession project in Dallas-FtWorth? This toll project is part along state highway (TX183, TX121), part along interstate (I-820). Would Rep Thompson's bill force a breach of toll concession contract between TxDOT and the concessionaire if tolling on the interstate portion was not in operation before his bill was enacted.

Or since there is reconstruction and addition of lanes in all segments would it not be a "portion... in existence" being tolled?

We've emailed Thompson's office to see what the congressman has in mind by "portion" and "in existence." His bill doesn't define either, so if passed it would be the source of great doubt and litigation.

US law allows six forms of new tolling on interstates:

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/background/index.htm

(see list of toll programs nearby)

There are scores of toll projects on interstates in operation, being implemented or planned under the value pricing program in particular. Almost every metro area has one or more. Many billions of dollars are due to be raised in the capital markets on the strength of toll revenue streams on these interstate and non-interstate corridors.

The vagueness of HR1071 leaves unclear how far these would be affected.

The Interstate Reconstruction and Rehabilitation program has approved tolling on VA/I-81 though it hasn't been implemented and doesn't look likely to be at present.

But I-70 in a bunch of central states led by Missouri is in planning with tolls under the Reconstruction and Rehabilitation law, which would seem to be revoked by HR1071.

Interstate Construction Toll Pilot Project law has already beeen used to allow I-26 to be planned as a tollroad from near the Charlotte NC area justa cross the border in South Carolina going all the way to the Atlantic at Myrtle Beach SC. This apparently would be allowed since it is a portion not "in existence" at present.

Other parts of I-26 were built with tax money and are certainly in existence.

De-designation to state route

In North Carolina in the Raleigh metro area the outer loop was begun in its northern portion as a tax-financed interstate I-540.  The next portion going counter-clockwise to the west of Raleigh was initially given interstate designation, but the state de-designated it. Now it is just a state route 540. As a state route they don't come under any federal restrictions.

So if Alan Biehler Pennsylvania secretary of transportation wants to toll I-80 he could investigate following the example of North Carolina on I-540/NC540 and de-designate I-80 from interstate status to a state route. As Pennsylvania state route 80 (PA80) he might not even have to ask the feds for permission to toll.

And Rep Thompson's HR1071 would not apply either.

Buy-back bar

HR1071 has a final clause with a "buy back" prohibition which bars a toll being collected on an interstate "purchased by a state" after enactment of the bill. 

Interstate highways are fully owned by state DOTs or state toll authorities regardless of the amount of federal aid. They aren't US Government property so they can't be sold to states. The state of Pennsylvania fully owns I-80's right of way and its pavement bridges, so it can't be "bought back."

What Rep Thompson probably has in mind is to pre-empt tolling by de-designation based on an offer to repay federal funds used on I-80 in the past. But the misconception about US Government ownership in the bill muddies the issue.

Here is a copy of the bill as filed

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/sites/default/files/HR1071.pdf

Thompson's press statement in error (COMMENT)

(1) “The American people currently pay for our Interstates through gas taxes, the Highway Trust Fund, and apportionment taxes on trucks hauling goods," Thompson's statement asserts.

Federal gasoline taxes on cars and diesel taxes on trucks go mostly to non-interstate roads and to transit. Only a small proportion goes for the interstates. 

And tolls on interstate roads and bridges have always been a major source of revenue for the support of interstates in states such as ME, NH, MA, NJ, NY, DE, PA, OH, IN, WV, IL, MD, and interstate bridges and tunnels there and elsewhere such as the San Francisco Bay Area.

Some important interstates now tax-supported were built initially as tollroads - in TX, CT, VA - but de-tolled.

Fuel taxes have never paid for the Interstate highway system. It has always required a mix of tolls and fuel taxes.

(2) “Tolls are taxes, plain and simple," says Thompson's press statement.

This is an illogical and purely pejorative use of the word tax.

Tolls are a price charged for a specific service - use of a road.

Taxes are levied by governments for general budgetary purposes.

Tolls are levied by private or public toll operators that have no taxing authority and sometimes no governmental connection at all. Tell Matty Maroun owner of the Ambassador Bridge he's collecting a "tax"!

Taxes are assessed as a proportion - a proportion of the value of your property each year, a proportion of your income on April 15, a proportion of a sale transaction such as buying clothing, appliances or cars, a proportion of an inheritance in the case of death duties... always taxes are assessed as a proportion.

Tolls are not a proportion of anything. They are a transaction in their own right, a payment for a service. They are an entry price, a price to go on the road. A toll is a price or like the ticket to get in to a football match, to get on a plane, or get into Disneyworld. You don't call them taxes.

As a payer of a tax you don't get anything very specific in return for a tax, just the general 'services' of government.

In return for a toll you get something very specific - the right to travel the road.

Tolls are not a tax, but they are an alternative to a tax for supporting a road.  Without tolls taxes would be higher, or road service less.

TOLLROADSnews 2009-02-22