The Toll Road legislation is coming up for a vote soon, which prompted me to do some more general thinking about the Toll Road. Some thoughts.
First, tolls charged to travel the road are taxes. They may be called something else, but they are taxes just as surely as are income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. It is money given to the government by its citizens to fund government functions. This proposal by Governor Daniels ensures that the tax will endure, double initially, and increase at the rate of 2% per year for at least the next 75 years.
Second, the creation and maintenance of roads are a core government function. Privatization of government services is not so troubling where the service being privatized is a function the government ought not be involved with in the first place. But I’m philosophically opposed to privatizing something at the core of why government exists in the first place. In this case, providing a transportation infrastructure.
My third thought is related to the first two thoughts. A good system of roads tie us all together, and make the state as a whole function better. As a general rule, highways ought to be paid for on a statewide basis. Obviously, a corollary of this rule would be that highways ought to be built to benefit the state generally — if taxes are taken from the state as a whole, they shouldn’t be used to build highways in and around one or a handful of cities (and vice versa.) Now, I recognize that toll roads may be a necessary evil. In some instances, the road may not be able to be built if tolls aren’t charged. If that happens, I believe that the tolls ought to be used to retire the bonds used to build the road and then eliminated or at least reduced to the bare minimum necessary to maintain the road. Taxes in the form of tolls should not be perpetual and should not be a profit-center for the State.
Just my two cents.
Doug, I have never read an article before that completely concurred with my thinking as your toll road mussing.
There is a fairness issue here that hasn’t been mention. Why do the people on I-80/I-90 have to pay a toll and the ones on I-70, I-65, etc. don’t? It would be more fair if the travelers on the toll road were excused from all fuel taxes which now amount to well over 40 cents a gal.Maybe I should shut up or Mitch will start putting up toll booths all over the state. Jim Burdsall
I understand that the original Interstate Highway Act prohibits charging tolls on roads built with federal assistance. I agree otherwise. Tolls, if they make sense at all, should be used in heavily urban areas to control congestion and to remedy the transfer of wealth from rural to urban areas that occurs where fuel taxes are the only funding system. The federal highway law largely blocks the rational application of tolls.
The Governor’s plan results in increases tolls on a highway that over much of its route passes through largely rural areas. The money realized from its sale will largely feed areas not affected by the increased tolls. The users of the toll road are being double taxed since they are not relieved from fuel taxes for their use of the Road, and fuel taxes have never been used for Toll Road maintenance. The plan presumes that we know how best to use the money right now, with no consideration being given to what future needs may be. Conveniently, the non-compete clause rules out certain types of road improvements in the very counties through which the Toll Road passes. It is almost as if the State has decided that South Bend should be designated for permanent second class status, and condemned to pay for Indianapolis’s streets in the process.
Regarding tolls on Interstate routes Section 113(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 stated:
Upon a finding by the Secretary of Commerce that such action will promote the development of an integrated Interstate System, the Secretary is authorized to approve as part of the Interstate System any toll road, bridge, or tunnel, now or hereafter constructed, which meets the standards adopted for the improvement of projects located on the Interstate System, whenever such toll road, bridge, or tunnel is located on a route heretofore or hereafter designated as a part of the Interstate System: Provided, That no Federal-aid highway funds shall be expended for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any such toll road except to the extent hereafter permitted by law: Provided further, That no Federal-aid highway funds shall be expended for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any such toll bridge or tunnel except to the extent now or hereafter permitted by law.
In looking over some of the provisions of the Agreement I noted (in the same section as the non-compete clause) that local government is to be prohibited from taking any “adverse action” relating to the concessionaire (seemingly actions which appear calculated to diminish the value of the concession of the toll road to the concessionaire). I guess I would have to read the whole of the legislation, but is there any restriction on the state binding counties through a contract rather than by law (or does HB 1008 give this contract force of law)?
Proposed IC 8-15.5-12-1 in HB 1008 preempts local control:
“Sec. 1. A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13) may not take any action that would have the effect of impairing a public-private agreement under this article.”