Rendell Proposing PennDOT/PTC Merger

[PAHighways]

Governor Rendell is asking lawmakers to consider doing something that has been an idea almost as long as putting tolls on 80. In a conference call to legislative leaders this past week, he asked them to table a plan to merge PennDOT and the Turnpike Commission.

Turnpike Commission, PennDOT Merger Eyed

[mightyace]

I know Massachusetts just finished doing this by folding the Mass Pike into their DOT.

The obvious question is whether the merger would save money and cut down on patronage.  Or would it simply consolidate patronage in one place?

Believe it or not, I honestly don't have an opinion for or against it at the moment.

[J N Winkler]

I tend to favor it, but for a very low-level reason.  Turnpike contracts on ECMS!

[rawmustard]

Haven't they essentially done this already with PA 44 and making PennDOT secretary Allen Biehler turnpike commission chairman? And I find it rather laughable that they think it would end the patronage, as if they think PennDOT is unblemished. But if it can cut down on government inefficiencies, it certainly is worth pursuing.

[PAHighways]

The Secretaries of Transportation have always held a position on the PTC board, but Joseph Brimmeier is still CEO.

[J N Winkler]

Is there really that much patronage in PennDOT?  The only corruption I can remember hearing about relates to the PTC, where it is apparently possible for unqualified people to get jobs through string-pulling.  I was under the impression that PennDOT hewed more closely to the Weberian ideal of bureaucracy--employment based strictly on qualifications, promotion based strictly on merit, no personal ownership or interest in the affairs of the state.

[mightyace]

I was under the impression that PennDOT hewed more closely to the Weberian ideal of bureaucracy--employment based strictly on qualifications, promotion based strictly on merit, no personal ownership or interest in the affairs of the state.

You are joking right? 

Actually, I don't really know about now, but back in the '70s it was PennDOT that got all the bad press.

[J N Winkler]

Nope, it was a serious question.  For all I know PennDOT might have tons of corruption, but I don't know where it might be.

PennDOT is the most officious state DOT I know of, but that in itself is not evidence of corruption.  I know PennDOT primarily through its standards documentation (some of which I collected in the early noughties when it was available in print format only), ECMS, a single request of my own under the present Right to Know Law, and several Final Determinations by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records which relate to requests others have filed for information from PennDOT.

The present RTKL is a major reform of the older RTKL (which may even date from Milton Shapp's administration) which narrowly defined records open to the public as meeting minutes.  The long-standing policy of both PennDOT and the PTC has been to construe this definition as narrowly as possible, and deny, deny, deny everything else.  PennDOT's office of chief counsel, in common with its counterparts at many other state and local agencies in Pennsylvania, has been pushing hard for the new RTKL to be interpreted as narrowly as possible so that the classes and types of records open under it are not significantly greater than those available under the old RTKL.

However, a lot of the other agencies have been trying to carry on as if the old RTKL were still in effect--applying the old deadlines, not notifying requesters of their right of appeal, denying valid requests based on the old exclusions, etc.  When the requester files an appeal with the OOR and the latter reviews how the request has been handled, the agency usually winds up with egg on its face.

PennDOT, in contrast, has taken a much more professional approach.  Everything is done in exact compliance with the current RTKL.  It has sections (notably § 706, the general exemptions clause) which are open to interpretation, however, and PennDOT typically tries to drive tractor-trailers through these.  As a result decisions are far from straightforward and the OOR website already has interesting case law arising from PennDOT requests.

PennDOT is wrong in principle in trying to continue the "deny, deny, deny" approach implicit in the old RTKL, but here it is a case of bureaucrats efficiently and professionally carrying out bad policy.  The fault here rests with those responsible for giving the policy direction, not those who carry it out.

[Scott5114]

I've never really understood why there was a need for two agencies in situations like this. You just end up with twice as much upper management. The new MassDOT doesn't really seem to be having any problems. More states should consider folding their turnpike authorities and their DOTs together.

In Oklahoma, Gary Ridley is the second man in state history to hold the triumvirate of transportation leadership positions. He has been head of ODOT since the early 2000s, and has also become head of OTA and most recently Secretary of Transportation. Only Neal A. McCaleb has done the same.

[sammack]

I've never really understood why there was a need for two agencies in situations like this. You just end up with twice as much upper management. The new MassDOT doesn't really seem to be having any problems. More states should consider folding their turnpike authorities and their DOTs together.

In Oklahoma, Gary Ridley is the second man in state history to hold the triumvirate of transportation leadership positions. He has been head of ODOT since the early 2000s, and has also become head of OTA and most recently Secretary of Transportation. Only Neal A. McCaleb has done the same.

In the early 1950's when the respective Turnpike Commission's or Authority's were created they were created to build and operate one road with bonds and when that road's bonds were paid off the respective Commission was to turn it over to the state highway department and close up shop.

Unfortunately when created in the 1950's their crystal balls were not working correctly as they could not see 300-400% increases in traffic volumes in the ensuing 30 years when the initial construction bonds were paid off.

For instance in the case of the Ohio Tpk, the initial construction bonds were paid off in 1984.  Were the road to be made a toll free addition to the state highway system it would have added hundreds of bridges and lane miles to the state highway system with no additional revenue.

It would have torn the Ohio Dept of Transportation budget to shreds.

[Brandon]

^^
And that's why many toll authorities continue to exist even after such stupid prmoises of turning over the roads to the DOT were made.  The DOT can't pay for their upkeep.  It's why the tollways in Illinois get better attention than the IDOT freeways.  IDOT can barely pay for the freeways currently.  I fear that states like Kentucky that turned their toll roads over to their DOTs may encounter a funding shortfall in the future that will impair their abilities to maintain or expand the roads.

I also think combining DOTs and the toll authorities is a bad idea.

[vdeane]

Unfortunately when created in the 1950's their crystal balls were not working correctly as they could not see 300-400% increases in traffic volumes in the ensuing 30 years when the initial construction bonds were paid off.

Their crystal balls were working perfectly - they just didn't take into account that women would be working in the future!

Had the interstate system been built after the feminist movement took hold, I suspect our roads would be a lot better designed for a society where 2-3+ cars per family is the norm.

Imagine a version of the US that is just like the US in the 1950s, except it has today's culture.  That version of the US would have twice as much traffic (at least!) as the actual US in the 1950s.

[J N Winkler]

I also think combining DOTs and the toll authorities is a bad idea.

Personally, I am agnostic on the issue, but I tend to think that unless there are a lot of savings in job positions in the combined organization after a merger, there is little to be gained from folding a turnpike authority into the DOT.  This analysis assumes that the turnpike is not undergoing large-scale expansion and the combined organization keeps tolls on existing toll roads; if tolls are also abolished, the financial case becomes even more unfavorable.

In Kansas, for example, abolishing the KTA and bringing the Turnpike under KDOT jurisdiction has been considered, but has not been proceeded with, partly because the KTA actually has lower costs per lane mile than KDOT.  This is possible if you have a very small organization with little diversity of infrastructure and infrequently programmed capacity expansion, as is true for some (but not all) 1940's-1950's turnpike authorities.

I think the PTC represents an exceptional case since it has well-recognized patronage and corruption problems and has been undergoing major capacity expansion.  For a turnpike authority not doing much capacity expansion work, it can be cheaper to keep a consulting engineer on retainer than to have an in-house design staff.  But if large capacity expansions are underway, consultant overheads can easily become a black hole.  This is the problem NTTA now faces:  they are trying to solve it by moving away from having HNTB handle all their general engineering work to hiring smaller and cheaper firms for specific jobs.

[PAHighways]

I've never really understood why there was a need for two agencies in situations like this.

The PTC was created because the Pennsylvania constitution prohibited the state from incurring more than $1 million of bonded debt, and the original 160 mile Turnpike was estimated to cost between $60 and $70 million.

[Mr_Northside]

^^
And that's why many toll authorities continue to exist even after such stupid prmoises of turning over the roads to the DOT were made.  The DOT can't pay for their upkeep.  It's why the tollways in Illinois get better attention than the IDOT freeways.  IDOT can barely pay for the freeways currently.  I fear that states like Kentucky that turned their toll roads over to their DOTs may encounter a funding shortfall in the future that will impair their abilities to maintain or expand the roads.

That is quite the case to pretty much toll all interstates. (With the condition that said tolls go back into only the roads tolled)