Imagine that you bring an item marked at $100 up to a store counter. The cashier takes your credit card, rings it up and says, “That will be $200.” Surprised, you ask, “What happened to the price?” The cashier replies, “We had a last-minute adjustment and since I am holding your credit card, I know you will pay for it.”
What was that? You say that has never happened to you? But it will, dear reader, as soon as you drive on the ICC.
Recently approved toll rates for the ICC are among the highest in the country, maxing out at 25-35 cents per mile during peak hours. Those rates are higher than stated by the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which assumed a baseline peak rate of 17 cents per mile and did not study any peak rates above 25 cents. Seven state legislators, most of whom ran on anti-ICC platforms in 2006, picked up on that fact and asked the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) to extend the comment period, but to no avail.
Why did the peak toll rate double in three years? It’s not because the project cost doubled. When contract costs increased a year ago, the state reacted by indefinitely postponing service road work near I-95. That kept the project on budget. Instead, the state is relying on a consultant’s report stating that the high tolls will result in “near maximum toll revenue potential.” That’s a change in course from the FEIS, which acknowledged the need to raise money but stated that in setting tolls “consideration would also be given to the desire to maximize use of the ICC so as to decrease traffic on alternative routes.”
Perhaps even worse than the tolls themselves is all the political demagoguery surrounding them. It is one thing for anti-ICC politicians like Council Member Phil Andrews to criticize the tolls. Andrews has opposed the ICC for many years on multiple grounds and his slamming of the tolls is perfectly consistent with his past positions. But the entire County Council, which has several ICC supporters, opposes the tolls too. Nancy Floreen, perhaps the county’s biggest ICC backer, calls the tolls “highway robbery.” We are not inclined to give ICC-boosting politicians a pass on the tolls. How can a politician be pro-ICC and anti-toll when it has been known since at least 1997 that the multi-billion dollar project would be financed with tolls? And is it really a surprise that a very expensive road project paid for by tolls would charge very high tolls?
Then there are state legislators like House Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D-17) and former Delegate Cheryl Kagan (D-17), who backed the ICC but now protest the tolls. Both of them were in office in 1997, when Delegates Dana Dembrow (D-20), Henry Heller (D-19), Adrienne Mandel (D-19), Patricia Faulkner (R-14B) and Raymond Beck (R-39) introduced a local bill prohibiting the ICC from becoming a toll road without the permission of the county’s state legislators. That bill would have given the delegation leverage to block onerous tolls. But neither Barve nor Kagan supported it and the bill died. Now both of them are shocked, shocked by the tolls! Other current state legislators who were in office at the time but did not co-sponsor this bill include Senators Brian Frosh (D-16) and Jennie Forehand (D-17) and Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20).
Finally, all of these politicians are missing a key point. MdTA has sole authority to set toll rates. It does not answer to the General Assembly and does whatever it wants. It unilaterally decided to charge fees for E-ZPasses last winter, claims it is not subject to state laws like the Public Information Act and now ignores its own FEIS by doubling the peak toll rate. While the politicians are quick to condemn the tolls, none of them present a plan to make this agency accountable to the public.
And what are the results of the agency’s unaccountability? MdTA’s rationale for high tolls is that they are needed to avoid diverting lots of toll revenue from the rest of the state and/or Transportation Trust Fund money to pay off the ICC’s bonds. But the ICC tolls that they have approved are so unreasonably high that drivers may avoid the road altogether. Then MdTA would have to jack up tolls from the rest of the state or seek trust fund money to pay the bonds – which is exactly what they say they are trying to avoid. And the General Assembly has little power to review their actions or stop them.
Where is the outrage over that?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Taken for a Ride on the ICC
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Phil Andrews Asks Governor to Lower ICC Tolls
Council Member Phil Andrews has written Governor Martin O'Malley to ask him to lower the tolls planned for the ICC. Andrews has been an ICC opponent throughout his political career and protested ICC tolls back in 2005, when they were to be set at 17 cents per mile at peak hours. Now they are planned for 25-35 cents. The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) does not report directly to the Governor, but he does appoint its nine-member board, which his chaired by the Secretary of Transportation, to three year staggered terms. Following is the Council Member's letter.
December 18, 2009
Honorable Martin O’Malley
Governor, State of Maryland
Annapolis MD 21401
Dear Governor O’Malley,
Yesterday, the Maryland Transportation Authority, whose members you appointed, approved unaffordably high tolls for the Inter-County Connector (ICC). These tolls will cost $3,000 per year for ICC commuters who travel daily end-to-end during peak hours. For many workers who earn $50,000 per year, that will be six percent of their pre-tax salary. Even if the economy were healthy, six percent of someone’s salary is too much to ask.
I am writing to request that you use the full power of your office to reverse this decision. If unchanged, the high tolls will prohibit drivers from using the road, thereby ensuring that the $3 billion ICC fails to take significant traffic off local roads.
During the 2002 election, the ICC was sold to the public as the best way to provide widespread traffic relief. No one mentioned high tolls that make the road unaffordable to many people with limited incomes. I don’t recall you mentioning them in your 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Asking the public to finance a road that many can’t afford to use amounts to a “bait and switch.”
You alone among state officials had the power to stop the ICC, and you have been noticeably silent on the now-approved ICC tolls. Whether the ICC becomes an historic boondoggle because of chronic under use is up to you. Whether the ICC becomes the embodiment of regressive public policy is up to you. The ICC will be your legacy.
Please apprise me of your views on the approved ICC tolls and what you intend to do if you disagree with the high tolls approved by the Maryland Transportation Authority.
Sincerely,
Phil Andrews
Montgomery County Council
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Maryland Transportation Authority in Trouble
At a recent meeting of Montgomery and Prince George’s County state legislators, the state’s Department of Legislative Services (DLS) made a detailed presentation on the state’s transportation prospects. We have already covered the state’s problems with the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF). But the condition of the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA), which controls the state’s toll roads, is a major revelation that points to a disturbing fact: Marylanders will soon pay higher tolls just to pay for the services they already have. And that’s just the beginning.
On October 9, a team of Montgomery and Prince George’s state legislators met to consider their significant regional transportation needs. DLS updated the group on the state’s challenges in financing transportation, a regular topic on this blog. Their analysis agreed with our reporting on the TTF: namely, that the state was having increasing problems keeping up with transportation needs. But it was their focus on MdTA that really caught our attention.
MdTA is a semi-independent agency that controls the state’s toll facilities, including I-95 northeast of Baltimore, the Bay Bridge and the Intercounty Connector (ICC). It does not depend on tax revenues, but instead pays for its operating, maintenance and new construction budgets out of tolls. The agency directly controls toll levels and E-ZPass charges, all of which are set to support its budget. The state’s problems in financing its transportation needs almost guarantee that any major new road projects, including the proposed widening of I-270, will require tolls to pay for construction.
MdTA told the legislators that it is under increasing financial pressure. First, its toll revenues – the lifeblood of the agency – have dropped in year-over-year terms for 12 of the last 14 months.
This is despite the fact that the agency has tried hard to raise new revenues.
The ICC, which is being financed primarily by toll-backed bonds, is drawing on the majority of MdTA’s funding at the moment.
MdTA’s current statutory debt limit is $3.0 billion. Primarily because of the bond issues used to build the ICC, the agency will come close to its limit by 2015. Any increase will require a vote by the state legislature.
MdTA is already projecting toll increases to support its operations.
MdTA says it has “significant capital needs in the future with no clear indication of how it will pay for them.”
Those needs primarily concern bridge replacements and Express Toll Lane construction on I-95 northeast of Baltimore. The agency’s analysis does not address any widening of I-270 or any other toll-based road projects.
This data reveals an awful truth: it is not merely the Transportation Trust Fund that is in trouble. It is also the case that the state’s toll road network is on the verge of being unable to pay for its own system preservation needs – even with toll increases in recent and coming years – much less for any new road construction.
Do the Lords of Annapolis need any more evidence of the impending transportation crisis that could soon cripple the state’s economy?
Monday, March 17, 2008
Paying for Roads One Way or Another
Yes, I know everyone is talking about MoCo’s budget crisis, and don’t worry – we will too. But this Post article on a report by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) calling for a comprehensive toll network caught my eye.
According to the article:The [COG] study, which will be presented to the council of governments' Transportation Planning Board, includes three scenarios. The first would add a series of new toll lanes to every freeway in the region, with tolls applying only to drivers on those lanes, a proposal that is seen as unworkable. The new roads and overpasses would be so costly and eat up so much land that it is essentially a non-starter.
Why are we talking about tolls? Because there just aren't very many alternatives to pay for massively expensive but necessary transportation projects. Neither Maryland nor Virginia have done very well at this. In last year’s special session, the Maryland legislature voted to allow the gas tax to increase along with construction costs, thereby generating an extra $400 million annually for transportation. But $250 million will go to maintenance, leaving just $150 million – roughly equal to the cost of one average interchange project – for new projects statewide each year. In Virginia, a plan to allow an unelected board to levy taxes for transportation unraveled when the state’s Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Politicians in neither state have shown much willingness to further increase gas taxes, so COG is proposing tolls as an alternative.
"We can't build a duplicate highway network; it ain't gonna happen," [COG transportation director Ronald] Kirby said.
The report lays out two other scenarios that would add tolls to existing highways:
One would add tolls to all District river crossings and existing freeway lanes in the city, where there is no room for new or expanded lanes. The plan would, in effect, connect the 1960s-era highway network that was discontinued in favor of Metrorail. For example, the stretch of New York Avenue from the District line to the Third Street tunnel, which connects U.S. 50 and Interstate 395, would be tolled. Similarly, the stretch of Independence and Maine avenues that joins the Arlington Memorial Bridge and Southeast/Southwest Freeway would be tolled.
The most comprehensive scenario, which has captured the imagination of planners and government leaders, would toll every regional highway, plus all the regional parkways, including the Baltimore-Washington, George Washington, Rock Creek and Potomac, Clara Barton and Suitland parkways.
According to the report, the most comprehensive tolling network would raise $2.75 billion a year, increase transit use by 6 percent, boost carpool rates by 4 percent and result in a relatively small -- 1.2 percent -- increase in vehicle miles traveled, which is how traffic planners measure the amount of driving.
I have never actually met a person who loves tolls. I mean, not just one who tolerates tolls, but one who has formed a pro-toll fan club, collects toll-related memorabilia, has opened a toll museum and worships toll collectors like rock stars. That said, EZ-Pass has made paying tolls less painful than it used to be.
But think about it like this: one way or another, we will pay for our road network. We can pay for it through a gas tax. We can pay for it through tolls. We can pay for it by privatizing roads (as Indiana has done) and then watching the private operators jack up the tolls over time. Or we can pay for it by sitting in congestion, burning needless gas as our cars idle and further pollute the atmosphere. The first two options present costs that are obvious and up-front whereas the last two have costs that are hidden or deferred. Nevertheless, I find the first two options preferable to the last two because at least they do not increase greenhouse gas emissions or enrich plutocratic investors.
