So Much for Change: New DOT Sec Endorses Toll Roads

by The Newspaper

Published: January 22nd, 2009

so much for change new dot sec endorses toll roads

Motorists expecting change from President Barack Obama’s choice of transportation secretary will find only a slight adjustment of priorities. Former Illinois Congressman Ray LaHood (R-Peoria) appeared before Senate transportation committee colleagues yesterday to give the first glimpse at what he wants to do to with federal transportation funds after taking his place in the cabinet. “Tolling new lanes of highways is thinking outside the box,” LaHood said. “We need to think about those kinds of opportunities. If we’re going to think innovatively, those are some of the ways we’re going to have to think about these things instead of the gas tax.” LaHood referred to the federal fuel excise tax first implemented in 1932 as a “dinosaur” and repeated the claims made by former Transportation Secretary Mary Peters that traditional funding sources were not bringing in enough money (more). LaHood suggested tolling was the “innovative” alternative that the country needs to “plus up” transportation revenue. Toll roads have been in use since the Middle Ages both as a means of generating fee income and of controlling public movement. And that’s OK, apparently.

A handful of senators expressed reservations regarding the imposition of tolls on highways. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) said the current emphasis on these methods was “too strong” and that the addition of toll booths on existing interstate highway lanes was not in the public interest. “Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea,” LaHood agreed.

Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner (D) praised his state’s leadership on public-private partnership initiatives such as the Beltway High Occupancy Toll lanes. Warner said he was worried about deals where private companies were risking public money to make a corporate profit. You know, other than the Beltway toll lanes. (In that deal, an Australian company will invest less than the cost of the interest on the $1.9b project, yet pocket tolls from drivers over the next eighty years.) Alaska Senator Mark Begich (D) said more directly that he was just not a fan of tolling.

On other topics, LaHood spoke in favor of increased use of motorist funds to subsidize mass transit. LaHood emphasized his consistent record in favor of raising CAFE standards and insisted that transportation projects would move forward quickly as part of an economic stimulus package.

“We have a mandate from President Obama to get things done,” LaHood said.

LaHood received the unanimous endorsement of the committee. He will take office afgter approval by the full Senate.

The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 28 comments

Thoots on Jan 23, 2009

Well, well, well. Here on the left coast tolls are all but unheard-of. Public opinion hearings bring out the pitchforks and torches. Meanwhile, every politician knows full well that any vote to increase the gas tax will end up with his or her beheading. And subsequent disembowelment. So, no gas-tax increase for decades means your state highway department isn't even close to keeping up with inflation. And the general rise in fuel efficiency doesn't help, either. Yet everyone screams and yells about congestion and potholes, but it's all a whisper compared to the outrage over spending a dime on mass transit. Oh, well. I guess if that bridge between your house and your office falls into the river, you can JUST GO BUY YOURSELF A FREAKIN' BOAT. Not that I'm in favor of tolls any more than anyone else. But I think the gist of the federal transportation dough in the future is going to be "if you can fund it with some private participation" (i.e., tolls), you're gonna get some of it. But if you've got a state full of anti-toll whiners, you won't get a dime. I recommend finding "work at home" employment and "shopping online."

Like Reply
Jason Lombard on Jan 23, 2009

@ thoots: Your tone was a little droll in the post above. I don't pretend to speak for everyone. But if the government wants more money, they need to justify where it's currently being spent. And the current budget is, shall we say, "reapportioned" so often that it makes it nearly impossible for the average Joe to figure out where the money is going. I believe that politicians like this. The less justification they have to do the better. I'm certainly not in favor of private participation driving policy on this matter. There are plenty of case studies that have shown that it really only leads to corruption, and does little to improve the roads (Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois). I don't want the federal government involved in most aspects of my daily life, but there are several that I welcome: military and infrastructure being two of the those. You wanna raise the gas tax? Go right ahead. After you make sure that what is currently being siphoned off gets put back, and a full accounting is done of where that money is being spent. Side note: Should the federal government be funding mass transit? Seems to me that the state and local levels would be much more efficient at designing a system that would work for their areas....and again, as a resident of rural California, should the burdens of a mass transit system in Washington D.C. be something that I concern myself with. I ask that honestly, as I really can't see how, but am open to hearing counter-point opinions.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Redapple2 Love the wheels
Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”