More states consider toll roads to raise infrastructure dollars

[Pete from Boston]

Plus CT doesn't want to expand its highways period.  Even an unlimited budget wouldn't get I-95 widened, for example.

Here's a question: does Connecticut have the leeway under the Clean Air Act to get through the environmental review to add any lane miles?  Northeast states tend to either be out of compliance or near their threshold. They each are required to have a detailed state implementation plan for compliance, and my understanding some years ago was that the lack of leeway under those plans made new highway construction difficult to impossible without considerable and expensive mitigation procedures.

[jbnv]

Here's a question: does Connecticut have the leeway under the Clean Air Act to get through the environmental review to add any lane miles?  Northeast states tend to either be out of compliance or near their threshold. They each are required to have a detailed state implementation plan for compliance, and my understanding some years ago was that the lack of leeway under those plans made new highway construction difficult to impossible without considerable and expensive mitigation procedures.

So the federal government has essentially banned some states from building roads? Yay "progressive" government.

[Pete from Boston]

Here's a question: does Connecticut have the leeway under the Clean Air Act to get through the environmental review to add any lane miles?  Northeast states tend to either be out of compliance or near their threshold. They each are required to have a detailed state implementation plan for compliance, and my understanding some years ago was that the lack of leeway under those plans made new highway construction difficult to impossible without considerable and expensive mitigation procedures.

So the federal government has essentially banned some states from building roads? Yay "progressive" government.

Well, the Clean Air Act has been around since 1963, so it's not like this is some new surprise.  The most recent version was pushed through by the progressive administration, as you put it, of George H.W. Bush in 1990, so for 24 years this has been the regime.

It does not ban any state from building highways. It requires each state to come up with a plan to ensure that safe levels of air quality are maintained.  There are a lot of components that go into this mix, including reducing sources and increasing mitigation.  As it happens, automobiles of today tend to burn fuel very inefficiently and thus spew out a lot of exhaust.  Projects whose modeling shows will likely lead to increased automobile use will count negatively towards the state's compliance. The Northeast happens to have a lot of cars — that doesn't mean that it is exempt from air quality standards. 

So Connecticut or any other state is free to build all the highways it wants. It just has to do so in a way that's not going to contribute to net worsening of our collective air quality.  It's not really the federal government's fault that Connecticut is not in compliance.

[cpzilliacus]

Plus CT doesn't want to expand its highways period.  Even an unlimited budget wouldn't get I-95 widened, for example.

Here's a question: does Connecticut have the leeway under the Clean Air Act to get through the environmental review to add any lane miles?  Northeast states tend to either be out of compliance or near their threshold. They each are required to have a detailed state implementation plan for compliance, and my understanding some years ago was that the lack of leeway under those plans made new highway construction difficult to impossible without considerable and expensive mitigation procedures.

The Clean Air Act Amendments require a so-called "conformity determination" by the relevant metropolitan planning organization (MPO).

Most MPOs are not having any trouble making those determinations (usually the pollutants of concern are nitrous oxides, or NOX, which are ground-level ozone precursors, as well as PM2.5 (particulate matter particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter).

Back when the requirement to do conformity determinations was imposed by Congress in the early 1990's, the anti-highway industry was gleeful, since they were thinking that billions of federal dollars that would normally have been spent on highway projects would instead go to building the rail transit systems of their dreams.

Of course, it did not work out that way, for several  reasons: (1) the declining real value of federal motor fuel tax revenues (transit systems that run on rails are extremely expensive); (2) the dramatically improved vehicle emission systems in gasoline-powered cars resulting in lowered NOX emissions; and (3) the requirement that all Diesel-powered highway-use vehicles convert to ultra-low-sulfur-Diesel (ULSD), which had previously only been mandated in California (also resulted in lower NOX and PM2.5 emissions).

So, to answer your question, I don't think air quality conformity would prevent Connecticut from widening their section of I-95.  I took a look at the Web site of the South Western Regional Planning Agency (SWRPA), which is the southwest corner of Connecticut (presumably the section of I-95 where there would be an air quality problem), and their conformity determination was updated and approved by FHWA and FTA just earlier this year. 

[cpzilliacus]

More angle on this story.

McClatchy Washington Bureau: Feds plan to let states toll interstate highways to pay for reconstruction

[Pete from Boston]

In 2007 I had some time to use south of Pittsburgh, and in doing so passed by and stopped into the fairly idle Mon-Fayette Expwy project office (a disused Pizza Hut).  They told me the project's completion into Pittsburgh was on hold pending Penna's gaining the ability to toll 80 as a qualifying pilot project.  As it turned out, they never got chosen as a pilot retrotoll.  I have no idea if they found other funding or if this will change things.  All I know is toll booths would break up the monotony of 80.  Too bad it'd just be ORT now. 

[cpzilliacus]

In 2007 I had some time to use south of Pittsburgh, and in doing so passed by and stopped into the fairly idle Mon-Fayette Expwy project office (a disused Pizza Hut).  They told me the project's completion into Pittsburgh was on hold pending Penna's gaining the ability to toll 80 as a qualifying pilot project.  As it turned out, they never got chosen as a pilot retrotoll.  I have no idea if they found other funding or if this will change things.  All I know is toll booths would break up the monotony of 80.  Too bad it'd just be ORT now.

As I understand it, even if Pennsylvania had been able to impose tolls on its section of I-80, the PTC was not going to be able to divert those dollars to completing the Mon-Fayette Expressway, nor would is have been legally allowed to divert the revenues to subsidizing the wage and benefit packages of SEPTA and Port Authority of Allegheny County hourly transit workers. 

What would have been legal for PennDOT to do was to take all of that tax money that was being spent to operate, maintain (and in a few cases improve) I-80 and spend it on other things around the state, including transit subsidies and the Mon-Fayette. 

[Duke87]

With regards to tolls on I-80 in PA, let's not forget that
1) the horrible human being who originally proposed that idea no longer has a job in Harrisburg.
2) Pennsylvania recently raised its gas tax to boost funding for transportation projects.

[cpzilliacus]

With regards to tolls on I-80 in PA, let's not forget that
1) the horrible human being who originally proposed that idea no longer has a job in Harrisburg.
2) Pennsylvania recently raised its gas tax to boost funding for transportation projects.

That horrible human being having the name Vincent Fumo?

I recall reading that Pennsylvania has increased taxes on motor fuels, but such revenues may not (as I understand it, according to state law) be used to fund transit operating or capital subsidies. 

But money from the Pennsylvania Turnpike can be diverted to transit as much as the government of the state wishes. 

[J N Winkler]

That horrible human being having the name Vincent Fumo?

I was going to ask Duke87 whether he meant Fumo or Ed Rendell--the latter being not nearly as bad as the former, but the two are not nice people.

[cpzilliacus]

That horrible human being having the name Vincent Fumo?

I was going to ask Duke87 whether he meant Fumo or Ed Rendell--the latter being not nearly as bad as the former, but the two are not nice people.

Fumo is (or was) serving time in federal prison. 

Rendell has never (as far as I know) been accused, much less convicted, of federal criminal activity. 

[J N Winkler]

Fumo is (or was) serving time in federal prison.

Yes, he received 55 months after he was successfully prosecuted on a 137-count federal indictment for wire fraud and various other things.

Rendell has never (as far as I know) been accused, much less convicted, of federal criminal activity.

Indeed not, but he was responsible for persuading Fumo to serve out his term in the Pennsylvania Senate instead of resigning immediately after he was indicted.  Plus there are various other things that give me a sour opinion of him, such as his reaction to Janet Napolitano (then Arizona governor) being appointed Homeland Security secretary:

. . . for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19, 20 hours a day to it.

[Duke87]

I was talking about Ed Rendell. I'm not familiar with this Fumo guy, but apparently he has a bit of a rap sheet!

So may I presume, from it having been brought up, that Vince Fumo while state senator was the one who first put the idea to toll I-80 forward? I always associated that fiasco with the Rendell administration - obviously wasn't the governor who came up with idea, but it was the governor who allowed it to go from an idea to a serious proposal.

So, fine, backspace "originally proposed that idea", insert "thought that was a good idea".

[Mr_Northside]

I recall reading that Pennsylvania has increased taxes on motor fuels, but such revenues may not (as I understand it, according to state law) be used to fund transit operating or capital subsidies. 

I'm not sure that's quite true.  I think I've read that the new transportation plan should help "stabilize" (curtail more service cuts/fare hikes) transit systems.  I'm not sure how the new revenue gets split up, but I think transit gets some.
It's also not a traditional "gas tax increase" either, it's a lifting of a cap on the "Oil Company Franchise Tax"... but since they can just pass their increased tax burden on down to the customer, it feels like one just the same.

[J N Winkler]

I was talking about Ed Rendell. I'm not familiar with this Fumo guy, but apparently he has a bit of a rap sheet!

He was a crook and anyone could have seen that from the 1970's onward.  He has enjoyed a political career that isn't really possible in, say, a frontier-tier state like Kansas or Nebraska, where you are finished politically as soon as you are seen to do something underhand, even if you are not necessarily convicted for it.

So may I presume, from it having been brought up, that Vince Fumo while state senator was the one who first put the idea to toll I-80 forward? I always associated that fiasco with the Rendell administration - obviously wasn't the governor who came up with idea, but it was the governor who allowed it to go from an idea to a serious proposal.

As I understand it, Fumo was the Pennsylvania legislature's leading advocate of Act 44, which called for using the Pennsylvania Turnpike as a piggy bank to fund PennDOT and urban transit.  Rendell actually favored a Turnpike lease deal (similar to that developed for the Indiana Toll Road) at one point, but climbed on the Act 44 wagon soon enough.  Nobody seemed to have a straight answer for what would happen if FHWA refused to allow I-80 tolls to be added to the Act 44 subsidy pot, which was a foregone conclusion since the law authorizing the Interstate tolling pilot program specifically said that toll revenues were to be spent only on the Interstate where they were collected.  This misbehavior was pretty typical of state legislatures following bad policy ideas--round up the votes and shut out the doubters.

Fumo represented an urban district in Philadelphia while Rendell was a former prosecutor in the same city, so there wasn't much to choose between the two in terms of their constituencies and client groups (urban, transit-dependent).

[PHLBOS]

Fumo represented an urban district in Philadelphia while Rendell was a former prosecutor in the same city, so there wasn't much to choose between the two in terms of their constituencies and client groups (urban, transit-dependent).

Rendell was also Mayor of Philadelphia 1992-2000 after being a prosecutor and before being governor 2003-2011.

BTW, Fumo has since been released from prison but is now under a house-arrest; meaning he has an ankle monitor/braclet on him.  He's also barred from running for the political office for the rest of his life.  However, that does not mean he still can't serve in a political capacity of sorts; just one that isn't an elected position.

[cpzilliacus]

I recall reading that Pennsylvania has increased taxes on motor fuels, but such revenues may not (as I understand it, according to state law) be used to fund transit operating or capital subsidies. 

I'm not sure that's quite true.

Section 11, paragraph A of the Pennsylvania state constitution is pretty clear:

All proceeds from gasoline and other motor fuel excise taxes, motor vehicle registration fees and license taxes, operators' license fees and other excise taxes imposed on products used in motor transportation after providing therefrom for (a) cost of administration and collection, (b) payment of obligations incurred in the construction and reconstruction of public highways and bridges shall be appropriated by the General Assembly to agencies of the State or political subdivisions thereof; and used solely for construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair of and safety on public highways and bridges and costs and expenses incident thereto, and for the payment of obligations incurred for such purposes, and shall not be diverted by transfer or otherwise to any other purpose, except that loans may be made by the State from the proceeds of such taxes and fees for a single period not exceeding eight months, but no such loan shall be made within the period of one year from any preceding loan, and every loan made in any fiscal year shall be repayable within one month after the beginning of the next fiscal year.

I think I've read that the new transportation plan should help "stabilize" (curtail more service cuts/fare hikes) transit systems.  I'm not sure how the new revenue gets split up, but I think transit gets some.

If transit gets something, it is pretty clear to me (based on revealed behavior) that the unions representing transit workers will demand even more.

It's also not a traditional "gas tax increase" either, it's a lifting of a cap on the "Oil Company Franchise Tax"... but since they can just pass their increased tax burden on down to the customer, it feels like one just the same.

Agreed.

[cpzilliacus]

As I understand it, Fumo was the Pennsylvania legislature's leading advocate of Act 44, which called for using the Pennsylvania Turnpike as a piggy bank to fund PennDOT and urban transit.  Rendell actually favored a Turnpike lease deal (similar to that developed for the Indiana Toll Road) at one point, but climbed on the Act 44 wagon soon enough.  Nobody seemed to have a straight answer for what would happen if FHWA refused to allow I-80 tolls to be added to the Act 44 subsidy pot, which was a foregone conclusion since the law authorizing the Interstate tolling pilot program specifically said that toll revenues were to be spent only on the Interstate where they were collected.  This misbehavior was pretty typical of state legislatures following bad policy ideas--round up the votes and shut out the doubters.

I would revise your first sentence above to read like this:

As I understand it, Fumo was the Pennsylvania legislature's leading advocate of Act 44, which called for (ab)using the patrons of the Pennsylvania Turnpike as a nearly unlimited source of cash to fund generous wage and benefit union contracts  at urban transit authorities like the Port Authority of Allegheny County and SEPTA; and to pay for PennDOT projects having little or nothing to do with the Turnpike.

Fumo represented an urban district in Philadelphia while Rendell was a former prosecutor in the same city, so there wasn't much to choose between the two in terms of their constituencies and client groups (urban, transit-dependent).

And using customers of the Pennsylvania Turnpike to fund things that nobody wanted to burden Pennsylvania taxpayer with.