High ICC tolls show how expensive new freeways are

Traffic

High ICC tolls show how expensive new freeways are

by Cavan Wilk • October 19, 2009 11:25 am

Many drivers are experiencing sticker shock at the proposed toll rates for the Intercounty Connector, up to 35 cents a mile during peak periods. The proposed toll structure is more expensive per mile than the turnpikes in neighboring New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and existing tolled portions of I-95 in Maryland. According to the Post, "the next-most expensive would be the Dulles Greenway's peak toll, which amounts to 28.5 cents a mile. Across the country, highway toll rates typically fall between 3 cents and 25 cents a mile, according to AAA. ... About one-quarter [of drivers] are projected to travel between the I-270 and I-95 corridors, facing a potential $5.60 rush-hour toll each way."

Photo by wingedphotography.

Why will the ICC be so expensive to drive? It's simple: the ICC is expensive to build, and proponents sold the road as a good deal because tolls would pay for most or all of the cost. But many voters and elected officials who supported the road didn't realize just how expensive it would be. Others reacted negatively not just to the size of the proposed tolls, but to the fact that driving on it will be tolled at all.

Those who opposed the ICC from the start are getting to say a bit of "I told you so." According to the Gazette, former Environmental Defense transportation director Michael Replogle, who fought the ICC all along, said that the opponents knew the tolls would be high. Replogle also pointed out that even with high tolls, Maryland will be spending scarce general transportation funds on the ICC at the expense of other needs elsewhere.

The ICC's subsidy will go way, way up if pushback from residents or elected officials succeeds in reducing the tolls. Montgomery Councilmember Phil Andrews opposed the road in the first place, but is now trying to lower the tolls. Paying for much of the road's cost with tolls was the plan from the start. Most people just didn't realize how expensive it really is.

Much of the general public tends to see roads as "free" and transit as "fare-based." Fundamental road costs such as the gas tax, supplemental general government fund appropriations (the gas tax hasn't completely covered road-related costs for years), and the opportunity costs of car-dependent land uses are hidden from view on a day-to-day basis. The costs of ICC tolls will start to change that perception. There is nothing "free" about the ICC. The hidden costs aren't free. The up-front tolls won't be free, either. Future elected officials will be far more hesitant to build new highways because the continued increase in construction costs will make them more likely to require tolls. They won't want to be known as someone who is in favor of high highway tolls.

The public's ICC-related sticker shock could be a turning point in their perception of "free" roads. Rather than having a mental image of themselves driving on a traffic-free road as fast as possible with the wind in their hair, they will instead envision themselves paying tolls. A $6.15 one-way rush hour toll works out to over $2,900 a year for a two-way daily commute. Most of the public will not make the explicit connection that the tolls are in lieu of higher taxes. The money for the debt service related to building the road has to come from somewhere. Some will drive and pay. Some will drive and take another route. Some will switch to transit (if possible). Some will switch jobs. Regardless, the experience of the $12.30 per day toll will never leave the public's consciousness.

The era of where we could just throw up highways just for motorist convenience is over. It is a shame that it will take the extremely expensive, failed legacy of the ICC in order for this reality to seep into the consciousness of the general public — if it does at all. However, it is better late than never, and there is still time to act to prevent a $4.6 billion repeat on I-270. Neighboring jurisdictions in our region should learn from Maryland's mistakes with the ICC.

Maryland is holding a series of meetings on the ICC tolls starting tonight. You can also comment on the tolls via the Web site.

25 comments — Share	— tags: ICC, Maryland, tolls

SHA avoids the T word in 270 reply (Oct 28, 2009)
Floreen, Berliner vote to continue the cycle of sprawl and pollution (Jul 17, 2009)
15 cents a mile for no traffic? (May 19, 2009)
"All you can eat" driving promotes vehicular gluttony (Feb 27, 2009)
No new subsidized parking in Bethesda (Apr 26, 2008)

Comments

a new Metro or high speed rail line should have been built where the ICC has been located- or at least a rail right of way.
However-

the idiots in charge in Maryland decided that anything other than cars & trucks is "environmentally"unsound or whatever. They will not even install a dedicated bikeway as it is too much for the "environment".

As I have said before- it is the Saudis and their spies in the sprawlzones controlling our transportation policy in the USA- this is why we are in trouble.

by w on Oct 19, 2009 11:43 am

Even ignoring the highway/transit debate, this is a great case study showing how a) tolls aren't the solution to our funding issues, and b) you can't use tolls to expect all projects to break even.

If you really wanted to fund the ICC and do it with tolls, you should be tolling the beltway, 270 and 95. You toll the congested area.

The pricing schemes we have in this country are exactly backward. Denver has the same thing - they've been building and tolling a beltway around the city, while the congested roads in the center remain free.

Tolls raise revenue, yes - but they shouldn't be considered a substitute for actual investments that are needed. When you think of them as a 'free' financing mechanism, you end up with this.

by Alex B. on Oct 19, 2009 11:52 am

Denver's beltway is really, really awful. They built it miles further out than any existing development, which naturally turned it into the biggest generator of new sprawl in state history.

It's tragic.

by BeyondDC on Oct 19, 2009 12:07 pm

What I wouldn't do to just for a week or a month to toll all the "free"ways so that the actual costs were paid by the users. I think the opposition to transit would evaporate into thin air.

by Boots on Oct 19, 2009 12:49 pm

A few things to consider here:

- The lengthy delays in starting construction on the ICC certainly have not helped the situation. Especially with what construction industry inflation was doing ca. 2002-late 2008, the costs have jumped considerably over what they would've been even 5 years ago.

- Right-of-way costs were a huge part of the overall ICC cost. While much of the right-of-way has been reserved for the corridor for years, it apparently wasn't purchased. Which means landowners got mid-2000s prices for their land vice 1990s (or earlier) prices.

- If you want to be perfectly fair with it, the issue with "hidden costs" applys to all forms of transportation, not just highways.

by Froggie on Oct 19, 2009 1:53 pm

Link to a Wired.com article about pricing. It's very shallow.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/10/the-upside-of-traffic/

by James on Oct 19, 2009 3:49 pm

On a related note:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2009/10/ruth-abbott-widow-of-sammie-abbott-dies.html

by Douglas Willinger on Oct 19, 2009 4:35 pm

The Post article and numerous residents complain about the tolls being the highest in the nation without mentioning that our land is also some of the most expensive in the nation and that our incomes are also some of the highest in the nation. How does the tolls compare to other cities relative to median household income? That's a better comparison.

by Capitol Dome on Oct 19, 2009 5:57 pm

Can someone point me to an analysis of the ICC financing? I've heard repeatedly that the tolls are projected to pay some, but not all, of the costs to develop the road, and that it is therefore diverting funds that could be used for other projects. I'd be interested to know whether "some" means 50% or 85% or what.

by Josh B on Oct 19, 2009 11:00 pm

the turnpikes in neighboring New Jersey and Pennsylvania

I could be completely dense, but does Maryland actually border New Jersey? It looks like Delaware is in the way.

by Gavin Baker on Oct 20, 2009 1:37 am

Josh: here's the 2008 version.

Gavin: correct, though Delaware isn't that wide, so one could make the argument that NE Maryland is a distant neighbor to SW New Jersey.

by Froggie on Oct 20, 2009 5:54 am

Gavin, I consider New Jersey a neighbor. I grew up in Cecil County, which is the rural county in the northeastern corner of the state. Since Delaware is so small, New Jersey is most definitely a neighbor. People in Elkton also root for Philadelphia pro sports teams more often than Baltimore ones. New Jersey is also very much an economic neighbor. The two states face very similar environmental and economic structures and challenges such as suburban sprawl and wetland/estuary protection. Both have their major highway going through their populous middle while the periphery is very rural and agricultural. I feel it is very reasonable to compare Maryland to New Jersey. The two states have very much in common.

New Jersey has also had its share of highway fights. Remember that I-95 is incomplete between Trenton and the NJ Turnpike. They seem to have reached a compromise route but the costs have escalated and will escalate until its completion in 2014. Kind of like the ICC Read more about it here.

The person at the end of the block is also your neighbor. They're not your next-door neighbor but they're still your neighbor.

by Cavan on Oct 20, 2009 9:47 am

This post, and the comments that follow, miss the main point that without tolls, the ICC would immediately congested. The toll was set that high not just to pay for the road itself, but also to regulate the level of congestion down to (what is expected to be) a reasonable level.

by Andrew on Oct 20, 2009 1:56 pm

The ICC has been planned since 1953, the land was put into reserve and provided the growth plan for Montgomery County to follow. WELL the Development did happen without the road and gridlock. I saw the maps at Montgomery County Offices in Rockville back in mid 1980s, when considering to move into a neighborhood adjoining the land reserve for ICC.

by Roger on Oct 20, 2009 2:43 pm

The District and the counties should put their dollars into expanding Metro and other forms of light rail, street cars, and improved mass transit. Why continue to make it easier to motorists by making these large highways that strip our trees and leave less room for development and housing. The metropolitan area as a whole will benefit from improvements to our Metro system.

by S on Oct 20, 2009 3:07 pm

The largest two issues for the DC metroplex are providing enormously more public transit and cleaning the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Both need regional taxing authority. Congestion pricing in London was a doddle because it is all one jurisdiction. The thirty-umpteen state and local government entities of DC militate against coordinated planning either for traffic or the environment. When there is no cross-border taxing authority, there is no unified policy. And unfortunately I can't see how to get there from here.

by slangwhanger-in-chief on Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

I'm not convinced there is a good alternative to the ICC. The north side of the beltway is bad all the time. You can get awful traffic jams on the weekends for seemingly no [good] reason. There just aren't enough good east-west roads in that part of Maryland.

I'm not convinced public transit can do much good. The public transit system is very much commuter based, and there's really no hope in changing that. And really, I think the Maryland suburbs are just too sparsely populated to come up with a good enough public transit system that people would lose their cars. Plus, the beltway has a lot of traffic from people either coming into, leaving, or simply travel through, the city. The metro is great for going to work downtown, at least if you live near a station, but isn't so great for running errands (plus it's pretty miserable to use it on the weekends). And it takes forever to get anywhere on the buses here, since they don't run very often and they stop so frequently (I went to grad school someplace with a great bus system, so maybe I was spoiled there).

Long term planning can help alleviate traffic problems by putting people closer to the things they need. But, I don't think a lot of people are getting on the beltway to get to their grocery store. And even if it could solve the problem, it would take so long to redevelop the Maryland suburbs that that really isn't a viable option in the short to medium term.

It seems like several approaches have to be done. Redeveloping areas, particularly those around metro stations, would help a little (I think the land around the Twinbrook station could be used much better). Improved public transit options would also help a little (though again, I think its hard to imagine having a significant impact on non-commuting trips). And yes, I think new roads can play an important role here too.

by Andy R on Oct 20, 2009 10:25 pm

@ Andy R: It is a massive misconception to assume that transit only benefits commuters. There are plenty of people moving out of rush hour. Who else is jamming up the beltway nearly 24/7?

I would love to be able to get a bus from Franconia-Springfield outside of rush hour. With the current commuter oriented bus, I can only go home between 4 and 7h30. It means that the latest I need to leave my desk downtown is 6h20. That is pathetically early. If I want to go out in DC, I have to drive and not drink, or shell out $20 for a cab. I would also love to take metro in the weekend when I go downtown, because parking can be a hassle. However, driving 20 min to the metro (there is no bus) and then riding metro for 40 minutes can not compete with the direct drive of 30 mins. And remember, parking on the Mall is still free. If you can find a spot.

by Jasper on Oct 20, 2009 10:48 pm

"I'm not convinced there is a good alternative to the ICC. "

Have you given any consideration to any of the un-built Washington, D.C. freeways?

The initial plans:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/12/1950-62-plans.html

JFK's Reduced Freeway Plan with Expanded Transit- featuring the "Y" route B&O North Central Freeway:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/12/1962-national-capital-transportation.html

The initial North Central Freeway engineering study which sharply deviated from the JFK plan with 37 routes slicing upon all new swaths through residential and park areas:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/11/1963-64-north-central-freeway-study.html

The supplementary North Central Freeway engineering report, released November 1966 which essentially reflected the JFK proposal- however officials would waffle between this plan and the far far more imp-active 1964 plan as late as 1968, stoking anti North Central Freeway sentiment.

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/11/1966-north-central-freeway.html

The 1971 rendering of this highway, with it entirely in a cut and cover tunnel from a few hundred feet north of MIchigan Avenue to just south of Rhode Island Avenue:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2006/11/1971-deluew.html

The 1971 rendering of the cross town I-66 North Leg West K Street Tunnel, replacing the 1955 proposal for this highway via a new swath alongside Florida Avenue and U Street, below grade to the west of New Jersey Avenue and easterly as an elevated berm:

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/search/label/North%20Leg

by Douglas Willinger on Oct 20, 2009 10:59 pm

Jasper: I agree completely that a lot of people are using the beltway outside of rush hour. I said that in my previous post. But, I think its hard to imagine public transit putting a big dent in that kind of travel. As I said, a fair portion of that traffic isn't local- either people coming into town, leaving town, or traveling through. And, even local traffic is hard to deal with using public transit. Things are spread out, and a good portion of people aren't within walking distance to metro stations, or aren't going somewhere near metro stations. Buses are another option, but they're so slow out here because the limited schedules, the frequency of stops, and the number of routes. Most trips would involve some sort of transfer, meaning they would take a lot of time. I think it's unrealistic to think people out in Rockville/Laurel/etc. will be able to completely get rid of their cars, so a lot of this comes down to making public transit more convenient (i.e. faster, cheaper) than driving. That's going to be really, really rough to do. Because people will have cars, and the marginal cost of driving is relatively low, I think its tough to make public transit much cheaper than driving. It seems like a lot of people out there actually want to make driving a miserable experience just to get more people to take public transit. That doesn't seem like a good approach to me.

Douglas Willinger: I'm not sure I understand. To some extent, the ICC is just a portion of the outer beltway, though I think it's running on a different path than originally intended for a variety of reasons. Are you suggesting any of those plans as a direct alternative to the ICC, and do you really think they're any better? Certainly people could argue at length over different routes, but mainly I just meant that I think we need some sort of new east-west freeway in the northern suburbs.

by Andy R on Oct 21, 2009 7:52 am

I am sorry but I am not buying the ICC will be too expensive Argument. How is the ICC any Different From the Dulles Toll Road/Greenway and All of the Toll Roads dowin in Richmond. First the Main Biased Argument against New Highways in Maryland is that it will cause more Commuter Traffic. Now they are going to toll the ICC and the same ICC Haters complaining about it will be expensive to use. If the ICC will be too expensive to use wouldn't that reduce the future raffic Bottleneck because of people not wanting to pay the so-called high toll.

Its either the ICC is a bad idea because of so-called future Commuter traffic Backups or the ICC is a bad idea because not everyone will use it because of the tolls which means that the ICC will not have Commuter Traffic Backup.

You can not have it both ways its one or the other because saying one thing and saying something diffferent a few years lateer is in defining of Contridiction in which it makes the argument against the ICC Useless and will fall on deaf ears.

by James on Oct 22, 2009 3:47 am

I just read:
Itching to talk about the ICC? 2 hearings ahead this week.
By Katherine Shaver
Sunday, October 25, 2009

Then I though back to what I read in the Washington Post article that sparked Cavan Wilk post above. Then I figured it out.

The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) manages and operators 7 toll facilities in the state.

Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge (MD US-40 Susquehanna River)
John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway (MD I-95 Susquehanna River)
Fort McHenry Tunnel (MD I-95 Baltimore Harbor)
Harbor Tunnel Thruway (MD I-895 Baltimore Harbor)
Francis Scott Key Bridge (MD I-695 Baltimore Beltway)
Harry W. Nice Memorial Bridge (MD US-301 Potomac River)
William Preston Lane Jr. Memorial Bridge (MD US-50/301 Chesapeake Bay)

All of these facilities facilitate the crossing of navigable shipping channels. It appears the folks at the MdTA have decided to use the tolling formulas that they use to set the toll at their exiting facilities for the ICC (MD-200). The ICC is a road not a bridge or tunnel. The MdTA should rethink their tolling formulas so they more closely match the tolls that are paid by users of similar toll roads.

by Sand Box John on Oct 26, 2009 12:07 am

To be fair, the I-95 Susquehanna tolls theoretically cover all of I-95 from the Baltimore city limit to the Delaware line (this stretch is maintained by MdTA, not SHA). But aside from that, you have an interesting theory going there, John.

by Froggie on Oct 26, 2009 10:22 am

Froggie:

When the MdTA maintained John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway originally opened. All of the interchange between the Baltimore Beltway and the Susquehanna River had unattended toll booths on them. MdTA removed them because it cost more to maintain toll booths then the revenue collected. The barriers were continently being knocked down.

by Sand Box John on Nov 2, 2009 11:10 am

"Are you suggesting any of those plans as a direct alternative to the ICC, and do you really think they're any better?"

I-66 K Street Tunnel cancellation had a ripple effect by diverting east west traffic to the north. So would the cancellation of the I-95 PEPCO-B&O connection to a degree.

Take out the upper half of a hub and spoke assembly will tend to make the outer wheel work harder. Perhaps a law suit against WMATA and Covington & Burling for reducing transport choice?!

http://wwwtripwithinthebeltway.blogspot.com/2009/10/ectc-paid-to-riot-via-covington-burling.html

by Douglas A. Willinger on Nov 2, 2009 1:34 pm