Tolling I-80 Not Dead Yet

[J N Winkler]

Levdansky's comment was spite, pure and simple.

I am going to wait for an actual announcement from FHWA before I believe this (it looks very much like a "Dewey wins, Truman loses" headline at this point), but I can't say a refusal would surprise me because what PennDOT and the PTC were trying to do was outside the terms of the federal legislation authorizing tolls on free Interstates as pilot programs.  I expect that instead Pennsylvania will lobby hard for a new program in the next transportation reauthorization bill which would allow them to do what they have been trying to do with I-80.  The issue will have to be settled in principle one way or another, and it will probably be settled in Congress, where it should have been in the first place.

[LeftyJR]

If you use Levdansky's logic, people who live along every non-PTC interstate in PA should lose funding.

[mightyace]

I don't know that I agree with Levdansky 100%... For the most part a projects need will factor in to whatever cuts are to be made... Though when it comes time to decide projects to cut, PennDOT should start "north" and work it's way "south".

I guess you would, but how is what Levdansky and you propose any different than what's happened for the last 40 years or more?  IMHO Pittsburgh and Philly have always bullied the rest of the state around.  (It may not be the case, but that's how it looks to me.)

At any rate, the long-term plan for I-80 itself should be nothing more than maintenance required for safety (repaving if pavement is so deteriorated as to actually be unsafe, and making sure bridges don't fall down.)  Not that PennDOT had any substantial plans to upgrade any of I-80 in any way anyway. (At least that I was aware of)

As if anything different was going to happen.  And, I bet if the tolling had succeeded, I-80 would still get no more than that, despite the "plans" that were on the Turnpike website.

Anyway, IMHO, I-80 in PA is in the best shape since the 1970s if ever.  And, my brother who spent significant time on both I-80 and the Turnpike last year said that the Turnpike was in worse shape.  So, you're paying those tolls and still getting a crappy road.

[Mr_Northside]

I guess we'll see how it works out in the end....
In the meantime it will be interesting to see what our dysfunctional state government (that can't even pass a damn budget without it being 100 days late) does next.

[J N Winkler]

An unpleasant side effect of this has occurred to me--I think we can probably forget about the South Junction Interchange being advertised this December, for starters.

[mightyace]

I am going to wait for an actual announcement from FHWA before I believe this (it looks very much like a "Dewey wins, Truman loses" headline at this point)

I just looked at http://www.paturnpike.com and nothing yet on the PTC's website.

[LeftyJR]

The announcement is set for 4PM.

[Mr_Northside]

An unpleasant side effect of this has occurred to me--I think we can probably forget about the South Junction Interchange being advertised this December, for starters.

[self-serving rant]As long as this doesn't screw up the plans for fixing the southern-most 2 miles of Rt. 28.  I think the 40th St. Bridge half will still be good to go, but I don't want to hear about lack of money when it comes time to start the 31st Bridge <-> Heinz Plant section! [/self-serving rant]

[PAHighways]

I am going to wait for an actual announcement from FHWA before I believe this (it looks very much like a "Dewey wins, Truman loses" headline at this point)

I just looked at http://www.paturnpike.com and nothing yet on the PTC's website.

The official announcement will be at 4 PM on PCN, which I mentioned in my post.

[J N Winkler]

PennDOT's budget for contract awards (in 2005, which I take as a representative year before Act 44 kicked in) used to be $1.3 billion.  With Act 44 money, let's say a round figure of $1.8 billion annually for construction.  About one-fourth of that is going to go away.

As an aside, PennDOT's construction budget seems kind of small for a state with such a high population (including a high driving population) and high marginal gas tax rate.  From memory, Kansas has a gas tax of 20c/gallon while Pennsylvania's is in the mid-30s.  Kansas has one-quarter the population but KDOT has still managed to carry a $800 million annual construction budget--two-thirds PennDOT's--through the noughties.

[mightyace]

This press release, from my hometown, just arrived in my inbox:

ALLIANCE TO STOP I-80 TOLLING
For Immediate Release                                                         
News                                                             

Contact: Ed Edwards   (570) 594-1999
               Vince Matteo (570) 326-1971
   
April 6, 2010
Alliance Proud to Recognize
Tolling Rejection

Bloomsburg, PA April 6, 2010- The Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling is delighted to recognize a major victory in the fight to prevent tolls on Interstate 80.

Today the Federal Highway Administration rejected the ill-conceived tolling scheme for the third time, echoing the concerns of thousands of families and businesses along the Interstate 80 corridor and throughout Pennsylvania.

"We commend Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and FHWA Administrator Victor Mendez for once again blocking this ill conceived plan."

"However, as long as Act 44 remains the law in Pennsylvania  we must stay vigilant," stated Ed Edwards Co-Chair of the Alliance to Stop I 80 Tolling and President of the Columbia-Montour Chamber of Commerce.

"I extend my deepest appreciation and gratitude to our nearly 100 members (consisting of local chambers of commerce, state and local elected officials, boroughs, townships, and numerous other organizations and individuals), and our congressional allies, our nearly 1,700 online supporters and the tens of thousands who signed petitions opposing tolling and wrote and called their elected officials. We also thank our strategic partners Quantum Communications for coordinating our strategy, keeping the Alliance unified and ultimately making this victory possible," Edwards continued.

"We are relieved the tolling scheme has been denied.  Now it's time to move forward in discussing alternatives to tolling Interstate 80. We expect the Pennsylvania State Legislature to immediately begin developing alternative funding for our state roads and bridges," continued Vince Matteo, Co-Chair of the Alliance and President of the Williamsport/Lycoming Chamber of Commerce.

Established in early 2008 by the Columbia Montour and Williamsport/Lycoming Chambers of Commerce, the Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling is the leading force working to keep Interstate 80 toll-free and prevent the implementation of Act 44.


For more information on the Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling, contact Ed Edwards at 570.784.2522,
or visit the Alliance on the web at www.noi80tolls.com

[PAHighways]

Governor Rendell Announces He Will Call Special Legislative Session to Address Transportation Funding

[mightyace]

From The Harrisburg Patriot-News:

Gov. Ed Rendell says Pennsylvania will not reapply for permission to toll Interstate 80

Rendell, in his 2010-11 state budget, said he was banking on the placement of new tolls on Interstate 80 to generate hundreds of millions of dollars for transportation projects. He acknowledged the risk following his budget presentation in February. "Were we to lose the I-80 tolling, we would have to go back to the drawing board" on transportation funding, Rendell said. "No question about it."  

Interesting quote, how can you lose something (I-80 tolling) that you NEVER HAD!

[vdeane]

I think it's interesting that they say Act 44 was plan B and plan C was cuts.  What was plan A?  The cuts should have been plan A to begin with!!!

But they can't even get that right.  Instead of cutting things along the I-80 area and northward, how about eliminating the wasteful spending that got PA into this situation?

[J N Winkler]

I am not sure cuts are realistic unless you are willing to take on the mass transit agencies.  This table tells the story:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/mf3.cfm

Pennsylvania has about $2.1 billion in state motor fuel tax receipts available for distribution each year.  Of that, about $180 million goes to local roads, while $730 million goes to transit systems, with the remainder going to PennDOT infrastructure.  BTW, Pennsylvania has a tax rate which is allowed to "float" within a narrow band (the gasoline tax rate of 31.2c/gallon, as of 2008, was comprised of 12c/gallon base tax with the remainder being an "Oil Franchise Tax" which is a set number of mills of the nominal wholesale price of gasoline, fixed by the Department of Revenue but for tax purposes not allowed to be under 90c/gallon nor above $1.25/gallon).

The impact of mass transit is still significant if you take federal revenues and disbursements into account.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hdf.cfm

Pennsylvania is actually a net recipient state in terms of federal funds (to the tune of $70 million).  Total revenues and disbursements are on the order of $5.3 billion, of which about $3.8 billion goes to highways while $1.4 billion (of which Pennsylvania contributes about three-quarters from state & local sources) goes to mass transit.

I continue to think that the total amount of PennDOT construction contract awards annually is small compared to total highway spending in Pennsylvania, but I can't see an obvious black hole unless PennDOT is servicing a massive amount of debt.

[dave19]

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/528600.html?nav=742
Application to toll I-80 rejected again - story from Altoona Mirror.

[froggie]

I think it's interesting that they say Act 44 was plan B and plan C was cuts.  What was plan A?  The cuts should have been plan A to begin with!!!

Plan A was the gas tax and vehicle registration increases that PennDOT recommended in 2006.  It, as we all know, was rejected in favor of Plan B (Act 44).

[mightyace]

I know I've said this before, but it's worth repeating.

If Rendell and company had completed an application for I-80 tolling that was within the bounds of the law, (i.e. Only for maintenance and upgrades to I-80) they would have been collecting tolls for a year or two already.

Now, it would not be the $450 million that Act 44 promised, but I'll make a WAG and say it could have been as much as $100 million a year and $100 million in PennDOT money could then be used on something else.

Simple logic says:
$100 million is not as good as $450 million.
But, $100 million is a d**n sight better than $0!

[J N Winkler]

But they had no interest in collecting that much money in tolls just to spend it on I-80.  They wanted a new revenue source and for the political capital it was going to take (essentially dividing the state against itself), they didn't want to be fighting for chump change.  Their gamble, which they lost, was that the prohibition against inflated "lease fees" as a mechanism for funneling money to general highway and transit spending (outside the I-80 corridor) could be finessed through interpretation.

[mightyace]

^^^

I agree.

But, if they had toll money from I-80 to spend on I-80, the money PennDOT would have spent on I-80 could be spent elsewhere.

For example:
Without Tolls:
PennDOT Budget: $1.5 Billion
I-80 Maint & Repair: $100 Million
All other: $1.4 Billion

With Tolls:
I-80 Tolls: $100 Million
I-80 Maint & Repair: $100 Million
-----------------
PennDOT Budget: $1.5 Billion
I-80 Maint & Repair: $0
All other: $1.5 Billion

Net Change to PennDOT budget +$100million

Even so, you're right in that they swung for the fences to try and hit a home run and struck out when they could have had an easy single.

EDIT: (Sorry to keep editing but, I had another thought.)
Of course, even if my figures are in the ballpark, they still would have had to find $350 million a year from another source and they wanted to do it from one source.

[J N Winkler]

I guess what I don't understand is why $450 million annually is such a "magic" figure, or why PennDOT's annual contract awards budget is so small compared to total highway spending in Pennsylvania (especially given that, because of the secondary route system, a high percentage of road mileage in Pennsylvania is owned by PennDOT).  Where does all the money go?  Is PennDOT really that top-heavy?  Is there that much patronage?  Does it cost that much to clear snow in the winter?  I feel a real urge to do a tear-down of PennDOT's budget but no time to do it . . .

[mightyace]

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/528600.html?nav=742
Application to toll I-80 rejected again - story from Altoona Mirror.

I'm not sure I believe this:

Even with the money from I-80 tolls, the state is $750 million short of what a Rendell-appointed commission recommended be spent annually to maintain Pennsylvania's transportation infrastructure. It also has a backlog of $11 billion in bridge repairs that are awaiting funding, PennDOT said.

The state's largest mass transit system, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, had been counting on $110 million a year from the tolling plan, or about one-fourth of its capital budget.

Without it, over 20 projects will be put on hold, including a new fare collection system and the reconstruction of the Broad Street subway station beneath City Hall. Rendell also said I-80 will receive $20 million a year in repair money, but would have gotten $50 million a year had tolling been approved.

According to this: PennDOT would be $750 million behind what it supposedly needs even with the tolls.  Therefore, it is now $1.2 billion behind.

Adding up J N Winkler's figures, Pennsylvania gets $7.4 Billion a year for transportation, both highway and transit.  Add it the $450 million from Act 44 that it will still get and we're up to $7.85 Billion.

Rendell's people think that the state needs around $9 billion. (7.85 B + 1.2 B shortfall)  The shortfall is approximately 13.3%.  It is generally said that most organizations can find 10% ($900 million) to cut without much pain.  Therefore, we are down to about $300-350 million gap.  Of course, that is under the amount from the defeated proposal.

I'm sorry Ed, is it THAT hard to come up with $300-350 million in cuts and/or tax/fee increases?

[J N Winkler]

Adding up J N Winkler's figures, Pennsylvania gets $7.4 Billion a year for transportation, both highway and transit.  Add it the $450 million from Act 44 that it will still get and we're up to $7.85 Billion.

Actually, I need to clarify--the total amount is $5.3 billion, from both federal and state sources.  Moreover, the federal data comes from the 2008 edition of Highway Statistics, and (if memory serves) Act 44 kicked in in 2007, so Act 44 monies should be included.

Rendell's people think that the state needs around $9 billion. (7.85 B + 1.2 B shortfall)

I think they are probably underestimating the need, but $9 billion is a reasonable ballpark figure.  I-80 tolling was never going to close that gap--I don't see how it could be closed short of raising motor fuel taxes to cover that higher estimate of need.  The political calculation seems to have been that tolling I-80 was easier than leasing the Turnpike, which in turn was easier than raising motor fuel taxes.

The shortfall is approximately 13.3%.  It is generally said that most organizations can find 10% ($900 million) to cut without much pain.  Therefore, we are down to about $300-350 million gap.  Of course, that is under the amount from the defeated proposal.

Considering total disbursements are around $5.3 billion, and the loss of $450 million from not being able to toll I-80 is less than 10% of that, the belt-tightening could be done--if it came to that--by delaying projects.  But I want to know more about why it is apparently not possible for PennDOT to get contract awards above $1.3 billion or so despite having responsibility for pretty much every highway of importance and about $3.7 billion to play with for the whole state.

I'm sorry Ed, is it THAT hard to come up with $300-350 million in cuts and/or tax/fee increases?

It might be harder to get the legislature to agree on them than to come up with them.

To put all of this in perspective--as a country our total spending on highways is around $100 billion annually.  In comparison, our "base" defense budget (i.e., independent of Iraq and Afghanistan) is something like $680 billion (4.7% of GDP, as opposed to 3% of GDP back in 1999 and 2000).  Iraq and Afghanistan between them cost something like $900 billion in direct costs, and probably another $900 billion in indirect costs (caring for war wounded, paying interest on debt we issued to finance the war, etc.).  It used to be that you had to pay millions in order to save a few pennies in tribute, but inflation's a bitch.

[mightyace]

Courtesy of our friends at www.TollRoadsNews.com, here is a link to their copy of the official statement from the USDOT.

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/sites/default/files/LaHood.docx

This came from the story:
"The law" prevented OK to tolling PA/I-80 - LaHood (AT LAST!)

Also on the site:
Feds reject Pennsylvania application to toll I-80 - state to revisit P3

[mightyace]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the interstate...

From the PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW:
I-80 toll plan may be revived

Now, if this goes anywhere, this is one I could live with because, as I've often said, it proposes simply to make I-80 self-supporting. (use I-80 tolls for I-80 only)

P. S. I found this when looking at the article PAHighways found on the proposed PennDOT/PTC merger.