"Penn Pike knew they needed solid reputable consulting studies, they ignored us" - FHWA chief counsel 2008

Marcus J Lemon chief counsel at FHWA through 2008 says he and other federal officials repeatedly told their counterparts at the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission they needed more substantial and impartial consulting studies to justify a federal permit to toll I-80. He tells TOLLROADSnews that at a meeting in July 2008 in the Harrisburg offices of the Turnpike where he represented federal highway administrator James Ray and in other conversations he stressed the importance for meeting the terms of the federal law of the Turnpike coming up with:

- a detailed analysis of the deficiencies of I-80 and a plan to improve it

- a solid traffic and revenue study to show the basis for revenue projections

- a fair market valuation produced by a solid reputable firm

Lemon tells us he "even gave them examples of reputable firms, such as Citi and others, whom they should look to for that service," adding: "They knew straight from the horse's mouth what they needed to do."

As chief counsel Lemon says he was accompanied by FHWA representative to Pennsylvania Rene Siegel in one major meeting at the Turnpike's head offices in Harrisburg overlooking the Susquehanna River.  Turnpike chief executive Joseph Brimmeier opened the meeting on behalf of the Turnpike but left, Marcus Lemon says, saying he had another urgent meeting. Other senior Turnpike officials and David Seltzer a consultant from Mercator Advisors were present for the whole session.

He says: "Keep in mind, we (FHWA and USDOT) met with them for years over this (I-80 tolling) and their application was allowed to go through multiple amendments and changes before our final rejection in (September) 2008."

Lemon now a partner at the law firm Baker and Miller PLLC in Washington DC dealt with the PA/I-80 tolling issue during both the first and second Turnpike applications on behalf of FHWA. He told us he personally favors tolling of interstates and other highways when it is based on a solid rationale, is backed by objective traffic and revenue and cost analysis, and objective valuations, and when it complies with federal and state laws.

On the present third application to toll I-80 Lemon tells us nothing prohibits FHWA from accepting it now, although from his reading the third shot is just as deficient in meeting the legal requirements of the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP) as the first two.  

It should be rejected

He isn't predicting anything however because politics can intervene.

But Lemon is adamant that the Turnpike's third application should be rejected. The Turnpike Commission has still not responded to requests for a proposal that is soundly supported and clearly comports with federal law, on Lemon's reading.

He suspects the Turnpike Commission avoided reputable traffic and revenue consultants and valuers precisely because they knew they would not get the answers they wanted on tolling I-80.

"FHWA will create a horrible precedent if they accept this application based on such a flimsy analysis.  It will open the door to other pathetically supported applications that will lead to failed tolling projects and will hurt the advance of tolling and congestion relief in general."

Lemon says that in the current economic environment with freight volumes and other traffic depressed tolling projects must be especially well thought out and well supported.

There's a danger he says that tolling I-80 will be what he calls "Pocahontas Part II."

That's a reference to a not-for-profit toll concession in Richmond Virginia that turned out to be heavily over-borrowed and had traffic and revenues than ran half of projections. It still struggles although bailed out by Transurban a private concessionaire.

On federal law applying to the PA/I-80 application:

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm

TOLLROADSnews 2009-11-30