by James A. Bacon
Tolls on Interstate 95? They could be in our future. The Federal Highway Administration yesterday granted the Virginia Department of Transportation preliminary approval to a request by Governor Bob McDonnell to toll the Interstate, subject to certain “important steps” that VDOT must take before full approval is granted, according to a press release issued by the governor’s office.
It was not clear from the press release where the McDonnell administration will place the tolls or what rates would be charged. In a May 2010 Washington Post article, written when Virginia submitted the request, Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton said he was contemplating tolls of $2 to $4 at a location near the North Carolina border with the goal of capturing primarily inter-state traffic. But the Times-Dispatch says today that state officials will look at other locations because the feds “want tolls to be collected in the areas where the money will be spent.”
In yesterday’s press release, VDOT estimated that tolls could generate $50 million annually. The revenues could be applied to widening the highway between I-295 north of Richmond and the North Carolina border, enhancing Intelligent Transportation Systems, installing over-height detectors on bridges, widening shoulders, installing guardrails, and improving pavement on more than 700 lane-miles within the corridor.
McDonnell described the heavily traveled highway corridor as having “deficient pavements and structures, congestion, higher crash density and safety concerns.” The entire I-95 corridor averages a level of service of ‘D’ and some more urban portions are ‘F’ during peak periods.
I have to say, this announcement took me by surprise. I had no inkling of it. The conservative radio talk shows will probably have a field day with it. But I have no objection in principle to tolling I-95, with the provisos, which the McDonnell administration apparently intends to abide by, that (1) the funds will be restricted to making improvements within the corridor, and (2) the money will be spent in the areas in which they are collected. The guiding principle is that the user/beneficiary of the project pays. Thus, if a priority project is widening I-95 between Hanover County and Petersburg, motorists in the Richmond metropolitan region are the ones who should pay the tolls — not motorists in Northern Virginia or Emporia.
I have to agree with the Federal Highway Administration on this one: Charging $2 to $4 at a single location near the North Carolina border was a terrible idea. The whole purpose was to soak inter-state travelers while exempting drivers in the Richmond-Petersburg area who use the Interstate every day. Such a strategy would invite a retaliatory response from North Carolina. It would set a horrific precedent that could be replicated nationally.
It’s too early to say whether the tolls, even as provisionally approved, are a good idea. I’d like to see the McDonnell administration’s cost-benefit study — assuming there is one. Politically, imposing a toll on a road where there was none will be wildly unpopular. People want the improvements — but they want “someone else” to pay for them. But in the abstract an Interstate corridor as important as I-95 should have an ongoing source of revenue to pay for maintenance and upgrades, much as is done in the case of the Powhite Parkway/Downtown Expressway here in the Richmond region. Of course, the devil is in the details.
(Note: It appears that Peter beat me to the punch on this topic. We were drafting posts simultaneously. He published his first.)
Update: In the post below, Peter contends that the toll amounts to a tax. I think it’s too early to say. It all depends on how the money is spent. It is useful to distinguish between “taxes” and “user fees.” With user fees, people pay for a good or service they receive from the government, such as access to roads and highways. If the tolls exceed the sum needed to pay for maintaining and upgrading the roads and if the surplus is diverted to another use — think Dulles Toll Road and Rail-to-Dulles — then it would constitute a tax. We’ll have to see where McDonnell wants to put the I-95 tolls and how he proposes to spend the money. On the other hand, from the standpoint of political perceptions, the tolls inevitably will be considered a tax because they will be imposed on roads that people had previously ridden upon toll-free.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.