Tolling of I-80: Concerned Pennsylvanians Take Their Fight to Washington DC December 14 2009
Representative Michele Brooks organizes a delegation from the I-80 corridor to visit Washington DC on Thursday, December 17, 2009
Written by Roberta Biros
The possible tolling of I-80 has been an issue in Pennsylvania for too long now. Attempts by the Turnpike Commission to push through an application with the Federal Highway Commission has been denied, but the Rendell administration seems to think that that one more try with a more “friendly administration” in Washington is worth another shot.
The argument is a simple one. Those that support the tolling of Interstate 80 argue that the proposed tolling was originally part of planned funding for statewide transportation costs, and that funding is still needed. To that argument, the federal government has stated that revenue from the tolling of I-80 can only be used to maintain the same I-80. It is for that reason that the application has been denied. It seems like this should have been a “done deal” back in 2008, but those that support the tolling of the highway keep beating the same dead horse in hopes that the leadership in Washington will eventually see things through a new set of rose colored glasses.
Understanding the Two Sides of the Coin
The battle over the tolling of Interstate 80 has become a simple conflict between the urban areas of Pennsylvania and the rural areas along the I-80 corridor in the northern tier of the Commonwealth. Perhaps it has become a matter of David vs. Goliath, but those of us along the I-80 corridor haven’t given up hope.
To understand both sides of the argument, I would suggest that you watch the two videos supplied below. The first video offers the “against tolling” argument which is offered by State Representative Matt Gabler (R-Elk/Clearfield) [watch the full video on YouTube HERE]. The second offers the “for tolling” argument, and it is offered by State Representative Ron Miller (R-York) [watch the full video on YouTube HERE].
Summary of Representative Matt Gabler’s Video
Like most of the legislators that represent districts along the I-80 corridor, Representative Gabler is concerned about how tolls on Interstate 80 will affect his constituents. He is, however, also concerned about recent controversies that have brought the credibility of the Turnpike Commission into question.
His first concern is a recent analysis performed by Provident Capital Advisors. The Louisiana based group was contracted by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to provide an analysis of the tolling scheme for the Interstate. It seems, however, that Provident Capital may have been part of a shady deal. They were hired for the task although they had never before been involved in a valuation analysis of highways in the past. Their experiences have been in health care, prisons, and juvenile detention facilities, but nothing was mentioned about highways or toll roads. It made some (including Representative Gabler) wonder if the company was simply hired as a political favor in order for the turnpike commission to get the results that they wanted.
The second problem occurred recently when the House Republican Policy Committee held a hearing on the I-80 tolling proposal. According to Rep. Gabler:
“What is really disappointing is that the policy committee had invited both the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation as well as the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to come testify. We have concerns about the plan and we have for a long time, and we think it would have been a great opportunity for them to fill in some of the holes that we think exist in the plan. They initially acted like they were going to come, and at the last minute they said ‘no we aren’t going to come.’ We were not able to hear any sort of reassurance that this plan does not have the holes we think we have in it. I’m very disappointed that they weren’t willing to be transparent with the taxpayers of the state that are going to be left holding the bag on this plan.”
During the interview, Rep. Gabler makes a particularly interesting point. Supporters of the tolling of I-80 argue that Pennsylvania shouldn’t be giving tractor trailers a free ride across the state. When asked the question, Rep. Gabler points out the following:
“There are a number of laws out there pertaining to heavy use vehicles such as tractor trailers. They are required to keep a mileage log, they are required to keep track of how many miles they run on what road in what state, and then they have to remit a payment mile-by-mile to the State of Pennsylvania for all 312 miles that they run across Interstate 80. A toll would take place on top of that. They would continue to pay their heavy use fees and they would continue to then additionally start paying tolls.”
Summary of Representative Ron Miller’s Video
As a supporter of the tolling of I-80, Representative Miller has a little different point of view. Unlike those Representatives in the I-80 corridor, Rep. Miller is not concerned about the negative impact of the tolling on local economies. He sees I-80 as a source of funding, but doesn’t acknowledge that tolling would impact ANY Pennsylvanians in a negative way. When addressing the exact same question as Rep. Gabler regarding some drivers getting a free ride across Pennsylvania, Rep. Miller says “they have a valid point”.
The Issues of Concern for Mercer County
Representative Michele Brooks (R-17-Mercer, Crawford, Lawrence Counties) recently participated in a roundtable discussion / radio address where she outlined the issues regarding the tolling of I-80 and highlighted the concerns of the people of Mercer County and other taxpayers along the I-80 corridor.
The roundtable discussion included David Taylor (Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association), Kevin Shivers (Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Association of Independent Businesses), along with Representative Michele Brooks. You can listen to the full 30 minute radio address HERE.
Rep. Brooks first explained:
“What we’re concerned about, first and foremost, is the tolling of I-80, but also how Act 44 came into fruition. This piece of legislation was railroaded through the House of Representatives and the Senate during a late budget without any appropriate public vetting. That is an illustration of what is partially wrong with government today. They push things through that effect everyday people and everyday jobs without any type of public vetting or transparency. That is our first concern. Our second concern is the economic impact of tolling this road. And third, we are not aware of any interstate in the history of the United States that has not been originally constructed as a toll road that has been successfully converted to a toll road.”
Regarding the economic impact on the local economy, Rep. Brooks states:
“It’s going to hurt our manufacturing, its going to hurt our small businesses, its going to hurt our family farms. Along the I-80 corridor there are real families and there is going to be real job loss. It is going to hurt our agricultural industry and our family farms.”
When asked the question “is this a problem of revenue when it comes to funding for our roads, bridges, and highways or is this an issue of spending?,” Representative Brooks responded:
“It’s an issue of spending.”
She went on to explain:
“Infrastructure is critically important to our businesses and our residents, but so are their jobs. If we are going to decimate an economy in order to build roads, have we really gained anything?”
To point out an issue of irony, Representative Brooks said:
“(We are) at a time when the federal government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars attempting to spur the economy, yet a decision by the federal government to toll I-80 would contradict that goal. This decision would have a devastating impact on our local economy.”
Specifically regarding the impact on jobs and the economy, Representative Brooks offers a few examples.
“I’m going to mention Hodge Foundry located in Greenville, Pennsylvania. 30% of their business is large wind turbines. If the tolling of I-80 goes through it will increase their transportation costs nearly 50%.” She adds, “we are not at a point in our economy where you can increase costs, so you’re going to lay off employees or you’ll reduce benefits to make up that additional money.”
Additionally, she explains:
“(We) have a local granary. It will cost him an additional $50,000 to $70,000 for transportation of grain. That’s going to effect food costs. That’s one local granary. It is going to impact our small family owned businesses as well as our manufacturers.”
Regarding the fact that this is the second attempt to toll I-80, Representative Brooks is concerned that this has simply turned into an issue of “politics” rather than good government. In response to other comments made during the roundtable discussion, Rep. Brooks stated:
“Under the Bush Administration (I-80 tolling) was rejected, but there have been several comments made by the Governor and the Turnpike Commission that they feel the current administration is a ‘friendly administration’ toward this application. That is politics at its worst. There should be no politics played in this decision. There are strict guidelines on why this application should be approved and that is what should be followed.”
It is the “politics” of the situation that has Rep. Brooks particularly concerned. In response to the controversies related to Provident Capital Advisors (the vendor that was hired to do the valuation analysis), Representative Brooks states “(in our letter to the highway administration we pointed out) that this is too significant of a decision that effects way too many lives . . . this decision can’t be made on questionable information from an entity that has no transportation related background at all.”
In an effort to get past the “politics”, Rep. Brooks has organization a delegation to take the concerns regarding the tolling of I-80 directly to Washington DC. She stated:
“One of our goals in visiting Washington and talking with the Federal Highway Administration is to give an accurate portrayal of the hardships that the tolling will have on real families and real farmers . . . the jobs and the businesses.”
As a criticism of government officials who have turned a deaf ear to the concerns of the people of the I-80 corridor, Representative Brooks said “It is ironic that some in government think that they have the answers . . . business owners, employees, residents, and farmers are saying ‘Stop, this is going to hurt us’ . . . yet there are some in government that just continue to railroad things through and think they know best . . . instead of the very people that we are elected to represent.”
Representative Brooks has worked with Congressman Thompson’s office and Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s office to arrange a meeting with a delegation from the State of Pennsylvania that will include State House Members and State Senators. According to a recent update from Representative Brooks, the meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, December 17th.
To close her participation in the radio address, Representative Brooks explained her goals for the Washington trip as follows:
“We have to make sure that the Federal Highway Administration has a very clear and concise portrayal of what happened. (They need to understand) how this legislation was railroaded through, (and) how there is outrage among the public if this does goes through. We are also going to point out that the merits of the application have not changed from prior rejections, and (we will explain) why we don’t feel that those merits have changed. We are also going to talk about how it (will) have a devastating impact on our local economies.”
In preparation for the Washington visit, Representative Brooks will be collecting the results of an on-line petition that was presented on her website. She encourages concerned citizens to visit the on-line petition to sign against the tolling of I-80. The on-line petition is available HERE.
An Interesting Twist: Do we need to dissolve the Turnpike Commission?
This week Representative Mike Vereb introduced a bill that proposes the complete elimination of the Turnpike Commission. The bill would assign all operation of the Turnpike Commission to PennDOT. State Represenatives Matt Gabler (R-Elk/Clearfield) and Dick Stevenson (R-8-Mercer/Butler) were co-sponsors of the bill.
In a YouTube video [view the full video HERE], Representative Stevenson says:
“The waste, fraud, and abuse that we’ve seen in the Turnpike Administration for years now is something that must be addressed, and when we have the turnpike commission now trying to take over I-80, that fills many of us with great concern. This is an organization which has not shown a great history or a great ability to run the road in a manageable or efficient style. Why would we let them now takeover another major highway across Pennsylvania.”
In support of the proposed bill, Representative Kathy Rapp (R-Warren/Forest/McKean) also made comments. In her YouTube video [view the full video HERE], Rep. Rapp said:
“We no longer need the Turnpike Commission. Penndot is very capable and much more responsible. . . more responsible with the taxpayer dollars. The Turnpike Commission just overspent 80 million dollars on an exchange in Montgomery County. It’s time to be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. One way that we can do that is to dissolve the Turnpike Commission (which this bill does) and have Penndot be responsible for the transportation and the roads in the State of Pennsylvania.”
I’m not absolutely certain that dissolving the Turnpike Commission is the answer, but it is an interesting idea. Right now I say “one step at a time”. I’d prefer to see the proposed tolling of I-80 stopped first. After that, I’d be glad to entertain the idea of dissolving as many useless government entities as possible . . . including the Turnpike Commission.
As always, just my opinion. ~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives
.
Possibly Related...
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Email Roberta Biros, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...
Stealth Dec 14
It’s a tough decision! The government has been the maintenance provider for Hwy 80 and is obviously failing as they do in almost everything. The private sector is commonly known to do a better job for the money but the money has to come from the taxpayers one way or the other. One way taxes the users and the other taxes all Pa residents. If leasing out the tolling to the private sector, the roads and all maintenance facilities will have to be turned over to the private sector company that does the leasing. Many people have problems with turning over property that is already paid for by the taxpayers. Tolls will no doubt go up with this type of contract since only the users will pay. The whole reason for this idea is to keep the taxes low in an already high taxed state. Adding to the problem is that Pa is a difficult place to build or maintain roads. Either way the taxpayer will take it on the chin….again. There is one other solution that may or may not work. That is to continue to collect taxes for the maintenance and pay that to a private company to do the maintenance, since the feds probably won’t allow tolling of interstate 80 by the state or the private sector. The feds want all monies to go to them before some of that money will be sent back to the state. We all know why that is, don’t we?
Roberta Biros Dec 14
Your comments regarding the costs of maintaining roads are all valid. However, when discussing the potential tolling of I-80, it is important to understand that the issue did not come about because the maintenance of I-80 has been failing or because the maintenance on that particular roadway had become too expensive. The reason that I-80 has been targeted for tolling is because it was seen as a wonderful source of income, and the tolling of it would only inconvenience the northern tier of the State. The goal is to use the funding produced by tolls on I-80 for projects that are not at all related to the I-80 corridor. Your statement that “One way taxes the users and the other taxes all Pa residents” is, therefore, a bit off base. In the case of I-80, you would be taxing the users from one part of the state (the I-80 corridor) to fund transportation and infrastructure projects everywhere else. Potential tolling cash cows like I-79 were ignored because the tolling of that Interstate would impact the highly congested southwest corner of the PA. I-80 was chosen because it was a soft target . . . rural Pennsylvania.