Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

U.S. 460 Proposals Advance

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Three private-sector proposals to upgrade U.S. 460 between Suffolk and Petersburg into a four-lane, limited-access highway are all worth a closer look, a state transportation review panel has decided. The Commonwealth Transportation Board will consider the panel’s recommendations for the 55-mile project this July.

There are no state funds available to underwrite the toll-road project, but public monies could be made available by the newly approved Hampton Roads Transportation Authority. According to Peter Bacque with the Times-Dispatch, the three proposals include:

  • Virginia Corridor Partners, $1.56 billion-$1.91 billion, with no state contribution.
  • Intinere, $1.5 billion-$1.9 billion, with up to $734 million in state funds.
  • Cintra 460, $1.05 billion-$1.37 billion, with up to $174.5 million in state funds.

On the face of it, the Virginia Corridor Partners proposal, which would require no state contribution, would seem to be the obvious choice. But the devil is in the details. How high would the tolls be and how long would they last? Bacque says it cost as much as $13.20 to drive the full length, and tolls could last as long as 50 to 99 years.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

5 responses to “U.S. 460 Proposals Advance”

  1. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Public money from HB3202’s unelected Regional Government can only be used in the counties in the Regional Government. Doesn’t go beyond Isle of Wight Co. Oops.

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think there is an important concept with respect to tolls vs taxes that is being overlooked – perhaps ignored – and ironically so by those who profess to have anti-tax philosophies.

    With tax-funded roads – the decisions about which roads to build out of the thousands that are advocated ought to be based on need/demand and other metrics applied in a equitable process so that a legitimate rank-ordered “build” list is the result.

    Instead, we have processes that ignore some of the most important criteria (like congestion relief) -in favor of political favorites – often driven by business interests.

    With TOLL roads – there is one metric that takes into account all the possible other metrics and that is – if the road is needed – people will be willing to pay for it.

    It’s a simple concept.

    If the proposed road cannot pass this simple economic test – what does it mean?

    Can it really be that the road is “needed” but folks would refuse pay to use it?

    Okay.. so let’s cut to the chase for the RT 460 proposals where two of them are hybrid tax/toll proposals.

    What does this mean?

    Doesn’t this mean that the projected demand for the roads is .. insufficient for the tolls that would have to be charged to provide the new road?

    In other words.. folks would avoid the road and it’s toll and jump on a hopelessly congested I-64 or the old 460?

    So.. the answer is…. essentially… that the road must be subsidized by all taxpayers…

    and the problem I have with this approach is .. what if we applied this logic to all roads?

    OH… I forgot .. this is exactly what we do right now… with all roads that are not toll roads…

    Can we really have it both ways?

    Can we complain mightly about the “relentless” congestion and the “nightmarish commute” but then when offered a TOLLED relief option… choose to stick with the nightmarish.. and relentless congestion?

    If a private investor is willing to pay to build a TOLL road – without state money – what is the downside of the investors being wrong with respect to the return on investment?

  3. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    Because the house of cards that the state owned Port Authority is busy building falls down if the cost of moving goods in and out of the port includes the cost to pay for the transportation infrastructure.

    You see – – all that “great” port exapnsion actually costs more in infrastructure than it nets in tax money to the state – and the port howls that they cannot be “competitive” if their trucks have to pay high tolls to move goods.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    if we were using the ports to export goods that were manufactured by Virginians and thus provided them with jobs and in turn.. those folks paid taxes rather than requiring assistance from NoVa and TW/HR economies then it might make sense to “subsidize” the port.

    Basically.. is it cheaper to subsidize the port verses paying assistance benefits…

    but if those ports are used to import goods from other countries to be sold to Virginian’s then what is the benefit of taxpayers paying for the roads to transport those goods to Virginia retailers so that the folks who import and sell the goods – benefit financially?

    Are we not, in effect, essentially turning over to these business interests – tax dollars?

    The problem is worse than that.

    Businesses should have to directly pay for their shipping costs because competition will force them to be efficient and cost-effective – which means less demand on the roads…

    whereas.. if we provide roads with taxpayer money – there is no incentive for the shipping companies to be more efficient.

    TOLLs would actually reward shippers who were efficient AND, probably as important – would force all of them to decide if roads were most cost-effective than rail.

    Either way – taxpayers win and private investors do not get to profit from taxpayers taxes.

    This is yet another example .. like Dominion Power where Virginia and it’s political leaders actually allow taxpayers to be exploited… in my view.

  5. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, The ports do serve a number of Virginia manufacturers who need an outlet for shipping their manufactured goods overseas. The Virginia Ports Authority has skifully played those links to garner political support in places like Southside and Central Virginia where those manufacturers do business.

    But you are quite right, the *driving force* behind the port expansion is to increase the volume of imports, not exports. Which raises a critical policy question: Do we really want to devote scarce infrastructure resources to subsidizing imports? Are we friggin’ crazy?

Leave a Reply

Read More