The fact that the Greenway imposes the full toll on someone who uses the Old Ox Road or Loudoun County Parkway interchanges is one thing I don't understand, especially as to Old Ox Road. It's extremely easy for a driver to avoid the toll without much inconvenience in the case of Old Ox Road by simply driving perhaps two miles out of his way (going eastbound, you simply take Old Ox to VA-28 south to the original Dulles Toll Road; reverse this going westbound). The Loudoun County Parkway is a bit more of a hassle, requiring the use of Waxpool Road and VA-28, but even there, the improvements to VA-28 make it far easier than it was 10 years ago. In my view of the world, going two miles out of your way twice a day to save $10 a day is well worth it. An occasional user of the road (say, someone driving out to Redskins training camp, or someone going to play golf at Brambleton Park) might not mind the toll as much, but a daily user would be foolish to pay it in this situation.

The Greenway seems to me to be a road that is ideally-suited to a New Jersey Turnpike or New York Thruway style ticket system where the tolls are graduated by distance driven. The majority of drivers use E-ZPass, making implementation seemingly simple as to them. The non E-ZPass crowd present a problem in that most of the Greenway's tollbooths are unmanned, accepting only E-ZPass or plastic. But this ought not pose a huge problem, as all they'd need to do would be to add a device that would read the magnetically-encoded toll ticket and present the charge. It would be just like paying for parking at a shopping mall. The traffic volumes at most of the exits on the Greenway are low enough that the minimal extra delay caused by this process ought not pose a problem (especially given that, as I said before, the vast majority of drivers on that road use E-ZPass, and every tollbooth on that road has at least one dedicated E-ZPass lane).

The difficulty with respect to growth controls in Virginia is that we are a Dillon Rule state. Localities have only the powers granted to them by the General Assembly, and Richmond controls the transportation system as well (except in independent cities and Henrico and Arlington Counties). The Dulles Greenway's operators are not free to raise tolls whenever they please--they're required to obtain approval from Richmond. I'm pretty sure the same is true on the privately-built Pocahontas Parkway (VA-895) south of Richmond. You can find articles online mentioning that the Greenway "received approval" for a toll hike, and you can find stories about how Congressman Frank Wolf recently asked the folks down in Richmond to force the Greenway to undo the most recent toll hike.

Similarly, Loudoun County can't direct the Greenway operators to adjust the tolls based on a desire to direct development to particular locations, and local governments in Virginia are relatively powerless (compared to local governments in other states) to prevent the use of land that's been zoned for a particular purpose if the owner proposes to use it for that purpose. The real issue here stems from the form of government used in the Commonwealth (whereby power is concentrated in Richmond and dribbled out to the localities) and from the 1932-era transportation act (I believe it's called the Byrd Road Act) that gave VDOT essentially plenary power over the roads in pretty much every locality across the Commonwealth except for the two remaining counties that opted out of the system. Changing the current system to allow for better controls on growth would be far more complex than many people realize.

by Rich on Aug 13, 2010 1:41 pm  

@Rich,

Your suggestion for a graduated toll sort of defeats the concept I'm finding interesting. It's the very fact that it's not graduated that makes this function as a growth boundary.

If the tolling were graduated, I think we'd have seen way more development on those next several exits than we do now. That 10-minute drive on arterial roads to avoid the Greenway is going to have some effect on people's decisions whether or not to buy a house there compared to a place that doesn't have the large toll or 10-minute drive.

by Joey on Aug 13, 2010 2:05 pm  

Yeah, I understand your point in that respect. I suppose the idea of the Greenway as a growth boundary is an unintended side effect of the way the toll structure works. I also should have mentioned that I don't know whether the toll structure as it now exists was mandated by the Commonwealth or whether the Greenway's builders proposed it in the first instance.

I don't doubt, though, that regardless of the toll structure, over 80% of the traffic on the Greenway would continue to pass through the main toll plaza at the road's eastern end to connect to either the airport, VA-28, or the original Dulles Toll Road. I've sometimes wondered to what extent the Greenway has been a spur for increased growth in the Reston Town Center area due to people commuting from Ashburn or Leesburg. I recall when I was a kid the only real building out there was the old Reston Sheraton (the white tower on the south side of the Dulles Access Road at the overpass of what was then called Reston Avenue, now Reston Parkway). When you passed it, you knew you were getting close to Dulles Airport. It was a good while after the Toll Road opened in 1984 before the Town Center started growing up, and it's seemed to me that it really took off in the late 1990s; if memory serves, the Greenway opened in 1995. Leesburg used to be WAY the heck out there (this coming from someone who lived off Gallows Road near Fairfax Hospital from 1974 to 1983, then off 236 near the old Pine Ridge Elementary from 1983 to 2001).

But I'm getting off track. The bigger theme of what I was addressing in my post is that in Virginia, using toll roads as a way of imposing growth controls is difficult because you have to go through Richmond to do it. Loudoun County, for example, couldn't improve US-15 north to Point of Rocks and then toll the road to pay for it. VDOT controls the road. The construction of NEW roads is pretty tightly controlled as well. I don't remember the facts, but I remember there was a real tussle over the construction of the Fairfax County Parkway because the county wanted to pay for the road and VDOT fought against it. You see where I'm going with this--the way the government works in the Commonwealth means that the idea you raise is a very interesting idea as a concept, but it's one that would be difficult to test in practice. I think the idea of the Greenway as a growth boundary is more an accident of history than anything else.

by Rich on Aug 13, 2010 2:28 pm  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Greenway has, if anything, introduced sprawl into Loundon county and Leesburg. The very recent toll increase might shift some traffic to non-toll roads, but that is also why Frank Wolf is crying like a little girl about the toll.

I'd had to say that, the ghost of Dillion's rule, and a private toll's company's primary objection is maximizing revenue, not land use as something of a stake through the heart of this idea.

by charlie on Aug 13, 2010 2:52 pm  

@Charlie,

You're absolutely correct in that the Greenway probably has introduced more sprawl into Loudoun. I don't know that I would have advocated for its construction in the first place.

What's interesting to me is that it hasn't introduced more sprawl. Likely through an accident in setting toll rates (as I agree, land user control was likely not a factor in doing so), this has created an interesting case study for future planning in other places.

I think we'll see a time in the next 10-20 years when most interstates are tolled (which would require a law change, I realize). If/when such tolls are set into motion, I wonder if this non-graduated model might be the best way to balance various geographic interests and political hurdles. It's certainly counterintuitive to many, who are generally used to some form of graduated tolls on longer freeways.

by Joey on Aug 13, 2010 3:00 pm  

I repeat what I've set before. Tolls are bad. It is a basic government function to provide for transportation infrastructure. This is exactly what we pay taxes for. We choose legislators so that they can decide how to divide the money between the different needs (roads vs rails vs trails, etc). And finally, we have an executive branch, led also by some elected doofus to make things happen.

IMHO, tolls are the results for weak legislators who are unable to convince their shirt-sighted constituents to pay the taxes required for the requested infrastructure.

The ICC is a prime example. People want the road, but unwilling to pay the required taxes. Weak legislators then copped out by making the road a toll road, putting off the moment at which the road is paid for. And now that the tolls have been set, legislators and constituents are howling that it's so expensive. Duh!

We have zoning laws to steer urban planning. That's where decisions need to be taken. Not at through toll levels.

by Jasper on Aug 13, 2010 3:14 pm  

I think the real issue behind using tolls as a means to control growth is whether or not the toll is high enough to impact a home buyers cost benefit analysis. Few people move outside the beltway because they prefer a longer drive to work. It is most likely because the home they want is either not available or affordable inside the beltway.

Either homes in the urban areas need to be less expensive, homes in the rural areas need to be more expensive, or the cost has to increase for traveling between the areas by an amount significant in comparison to the savings in mortgage costs. Arlingtonians aren't going to give away the ridiculous amount of free equity they earned in the 90s and I doubt the state is going to tax rural areas just for being rural, so tolls might be the best tool available. A $1,000,000 home in Arlington might only be $400k in a rural area. How high does the toll need to be to impact the benefit of saving $3200 a month on a mortgage? Probably significantly more than a $5 toll.

by OddNumber on Aug 13, 2010 3:15 pm  

@Joey; OK, I see your point -- this is an experiment, not a model.

I think you're wrong about the future of tolling. So much of the tolling talk was because of finance, not because of the business case for tolled private roads. Private investment funds could assemble billions in cheap finance to do the buy outs. It was more profitable for them to run it than the public sector because it turns out you can securitize parts of the toll revenue and they work great in parts of larger financial packages. That has largely evaporated, and the push by private firms for tolling is likely to go down.

That being said, you flat fee model might work for something like the proposed truck/HOV lanes on i-81, where you could build out a private highway just for truckers driving through. However, I think you would have to find a very hard case to find a toll that would deliver a rate of return to cover both capital and operating costs.

A far more effective strategy for reducing sprawl is a guaranteed increase in gas prices, either their demand pricing or gas taxes. Gas at $6 a gallon will greatly reduce Americans desire to live 30+ miles from where they work. Range extending EVs will make it palatable for some, but they will be expensive in the next 10-2o years.

by charlie on Aug 13, 2010 3:20 pm  

Hmm. I wonder if I could have been clearer in my post. The interesting thing to me here isn't toll roads. It isn't general sprawl control using tolls. It isn't about raising money or using a toll to pay for a road's construction or maintenance.

All of these things have been the subject of many, many other write-ups on this blog and in other publications.

What's interesting to me here (and for which the Greenway serves as an example), is a large fixed-rate toll at a single location (rather than graduated tolling) that serves to create a specific boundary beyond which growth would be less likely.

Any kind of toll road is going to change people's incentives to driving. However, like regular gas taxes, most toll roads (with graduated structures) make going "just one more exit" only a subtly more expensive proposition.

For someone going a long distance (e.g., Ashburn to Arlington), this won't change much of any decision. But for someone choosing between a $250k house in Herndon or a similar $230k house off Loudoun County Parkway only a few miles away, a large fixed-price toll is going to discourage a purchase of the latter home.

Any sales-price savings is going to be eaten up over the years by a toll that's not equivalent marginally to "just 3 more miles". It would serve as an encouragement to stay within the boundary. And it would do so in a way that allows people to make their own decisions as long as they accept the cost (unlike mass downzoning, which is hard to do in Virginia anyway, per Carper).

by Joey on Aug 13, 2010 3:30 pm  

@Joey; commentators have a mind of their own...

But your example is bit flawed? In terms of low hanging fruit, don't we want to convince the potential Tysons commuter to live in Ashburn rather than Leesburg?

And at least in Virginia, the problems of enacting tolling seems far higher than determining density.

by charlie on Aug 13, 2010 4:06 pm  

@Charlie,

Well, I'd say that the Tysons commuter who wants to live in Leesburg is going to live in Leesburg. He's already chosen to leapfrog over many closer options that are similarly priced to Leesburg (along with passing lots of undeveloped farmland).

On the other hand, I'd argue that it'd be beneficial to encourage those commuters to move to Herndon or Reston or Vienna or Annandale (all currently built up) rather than Ashburn.

The more demand you focus into those areas, the better returns developers will get for building more densely in existing areas (hopefully around transit stops).

As long as more development "creeps" further, there will always be a push for just a little more creep. On the other hand, creep is much more difficult if there's a set boundary.

by Joey on Aug 13, 2010 4:14 pm  

@Joey; OK, I must be slow today. Starting to get your idea: build a light congestion barrier with a non-graduated toll coming into the area.

But like a lot of the externality ideas thrown around, maybe a bit too precious for its own good.

by charlie on Aug 13, 2010 4:30 pm  

Jasper objects to toll roads and says that the government ought to find other ways to fund them.

I don't entirely agree. I think using tolls to fund new roads is acceptable but that ideally in that situation the tolls will be the only source of funding for the road unless things like service areas are included, in which case it's perfectly legitimate for the funds raised from leasing the service area space (and possibly from a cut of sales at the service areas) to be applied towards the road funding. The New Jersey Turnpike is the classic example of this. It's funded through tolls and service area revenue and receives no other state funding; in addition, none of the revenue from that road goes to fund other projects in the state with the exception of the Garden State Parkway (this because the Turnpike and Parkway are now both controlled by the same agency). To me, that's the ideal model for a toll road because it seems to be capitalism at its finest: If you drive on the road, you contribute to paying for it. If you don't drive on the road, you don't contribute.

In that same vein, therefore, I don't necessarily have a problem with using toll systems to pay for new road improvements (including, for example, the Beltway HOT lanes). If it is truly a NEW road, or NEW lanes on an existing road, then I don't have a problem with using tolls to pay for the project as long as the tolls are not diverted (in whole or in part) to pay for something else. The proposal to turn I-81 into a quad-carriageway facility with segregated car and truck lanes, paid for by tolling the new truck lanes, seemed reasonable until it turned out that the proposal prohibited VDOT from upgrading US-29, I-95, or I-85 because those roads could "compete" with the I-81 tollway. Pennsylvania's proposal to toll I-80 was a non-starter in my view (and the Federal Highway Administration agreed) because they wanted to use the toll revenue for projects around the Commonwealth, rather than strictly for improving I-80. Bob McDonnell's proposal to toll I-95 at the North Carolina state line to fund improvements to the road between there and I-295 might meet with more success with the FHWA because the funding would be restricted to I-95 improvements.

What I find odious is when a toll is imposed simply as a middle-finger gesture to some people so that the government can avoid raising money via other means. The notorious Delaware Turnpike toll is the prime example. The only people who pay it are those who cross the state line to and from Maryland on I-95 (and it's easy to bypass the toll, BTW). It's obvious that Delaware does this to sock it to out-of-staters as a way to continue to avoid imposing a state sales tax. Similarly, if you drive up the Maine Turnpike to Portland and you exit at I-295, there's a 60-cent toll. Yet if you go half a mile further to the Maine Mall exit, there's no toll, and driving half a mile east on that road then connects you to I-295 for free. Locals call the I-295 exit the "Tourist Exit" because tourists are the only people stupid enough to exit there. Tolls like those two annoy me because you have to be a sucker to pay them and the toll authority is relying on people being ignorant or apathetic. (I suppose the example I cited in my first comment in this thread regarding Old Ox Road and the Greenway is another prime example that falls in this group. If you are on Old Ox Road heading to the Dulles Toll Road, or if you're on the Toll Road or VA-28 going to Old Ox Road, you're nuts if you take the Greenway and pay $5.25.)

Yeah, I know this is off-topic from the original entry about the Greenway as an unintentional growth boundary, but since Jasper raised the issue of the legitimacy of toll roads I viewed it as legitimate. I think to some degree the point about putting tolls on existing roads to fund improvements almost raises the CONVERSE of the question Joey asks: If toll roads can retard growth, can growth in turn promote toll roads?

by Rich on Aug 13, 2010 4:54 pm  

Joey:

I understand your point, but I am wondering whether it rests upon an incorrect assumption - namely that there in fact has been a stop to suburban sprawl at the beginning of the Dulles Greenway (i.e., at Route 28).

As I look at the Google satellite pictures, Ashburn and Broadlands appear as built up as Sterling or Herndon (or South Riding on the south side of Dulles). Yes, there is a largely undeveloped zone about one to two miles wide between Route 28 and Ashburn, centered on the Loudoun County Parkway, but this may be in part because the land was preempted for the AOL headquarters and the Redskins Park. There appears to be a similar greenbelt between, for example, Centreville and Manassas, which is now protected in a series of county parks.

Thus, from the satellite imagery, it appears to me that the urban growth boundary/suburban sprawl has already advanced to Belmont Ridge Road, which is the fourth exit westbound on the Greenway. This in turn would suggest that the steep toll to enter the Greenway has not in fact been very effective in serving as a growth boundary.

by rock_n_rent on Aug 13, 2010 8:01 pm  

As you may know, Virginia is the only state that bans the use and sale of detectors. There is no evidence that the detector ban increases highway safety. Our nationÂ’s fatality rates have fallen consistently for almost two decades. VirginiaÂ’s fatality rate has also fallen, but not any more dramatically than it has nationwide. Research has even shown that radar detector owners have a lower accident rate than motorists who do not own a detector.

Maintaining the ban is not in the best interest of Virginians or visitors to the state. I know and know of people that will not drive in Virginia due to this ban. Unjust enforcement practices are not unheard of, and radar detectors can keep safe motorists from being exploited by abusive speed traps. Likewise, the ban has a negative impact on VirginiaÂ’s business community. Electronic distributors lose business to neighboring states and Virginia misses out on valuable sales tax revenue.

Radar detector bans do not work. Research and experience show that radar detector bans do not result in lower accident rates, improved speed-limit compliance or reduce auto insurance expenditures.
• The Virginia radar detector ban is difficult and expensive to enforce. The Virginia ban diverts precious law enforcement resources from more important duties.
• Radar detectors are legal in the rest of the nation, in all 49 other states. In fact, the first state to test a radar detector ban, Connecticut, repealed the law – it ruled the law was ineffective and unfair. It is time for our Virginia to join the rest of the nation.
• It has never been shown that radar detectors cause accidents or even encourage motorists to drive faster than they would otherwise. The Yankelovich – Clancy – Shulman Radar Detector Study conducted in 1987, showed that radar detector users drove an average of 34% further between accidents (233,933 miles versus 174,554 miles) than non radar detector users. The study also showed that they have much higher seat belt use compliance. If drivers with radar detectors have fewer accidents, it follows that they have reduced insurance costs – it is counterproductive to ban radar detectors.
• In a similar study performed in Great Britain by MORI in 2001 the summary reports that "Users (of radar detectors) appear to travel 50% further between accidents than non-users. In this survey the users interviewed traveling on average 217,353 miles between accidents compared to 143,401 miles between accidents of those non-users randomly drawn from the general public." The MORI study also reported "Three quarters agree, perhaps unsurprisingly, that since purchasing a radar detector they have become more conscious about keeping to the speed limit..." and "Three in five detector users claim to have become a safer driver since purchasing a detector."
• Modern radar detectors play a significant role in preventing accidents and laying the technology foundation for the Safety Warning System® (SWS). Radar detectors with SWS alert motorists to oncoming emergency vehicles, potential road hazards, and unusual traffic conditions. There are more than 10 million radar detectors with SWS in use nationwide. The federal government has earmarked $2.1 million for further study of the SWS over a three-year period of time. The U.S. Department of Transportation is administering grants to state and local governments to purchase the SWS system and study its effectiveness (for example, in the form of SWS transmitters for school buses and emergency vehicles). The drivers of Virginia deserve the right to the important safety benefits that SWS delivers.
*** A small surcharge($5-$10) or tax(2%-3%) could be added to the price of the device to make-up for any possible loss of revenue from reduced number of speeding tickets and the loss of tickets written for radar detectors.***

Please sign this petition and help repeal this ban and give drivers in Virginia the freedom to know if they are under surveillance and to use their property legally:

www.stoptheban.org

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/repeal-the-virginia-radar-detector-ban

by Repeal_The_Va_Radar_Detector_Ban on Aug 13, 2010 11:58 pm  

@ Oddnumber:Few people move outside the beltway because they prefer a longer drive to work

Did you know there are people with jobs outside the District? There's a whole world out there. There are jobs out there in Alexandria, Frederick and Woodbridge. Those people have a choice to make. Live semi-rurally in a McMansion, or live closer in in a smaller place. In fact, most people in Leesburg consider a trip to DC a touristic adventure.

@ Rich: The New Jersey Turnpike is the classic example of this.

Yeah. And the Jersey turnpike is classically hated for its tolls. The problem with your view is that it Eventually leads to all roads being toll roads. What do you think is more efficient? Paying roads from taxes, or by having toll booths? Your argument is in the end the same as the one causing "conveniene fees" all over the place.

You are correct on the private-government tolled roads. They all have unacceptable side-rules.

The notorious Delaware Turnpike toll is the prime example.

And how exactly is the DE TP different from the NJ TP?

by Jasper on Aug 14, 2010 11:23 am  

@Jasper: Did you know there are people with jobs outside the District?

Wow, there are people who live and work and prefer to live out there? Really, I had no idea. Fortunately, since they only consider going to DC a touristic adventure, they would not be affected on a daily basis by the tolls the way a commuter to DC would.

by OddNumber on Aug 14, 2010 11:59 am  

@Rich: To me, that's the ideal model for a toll road because it seems to be capitalism at its finest: If you drive on the road, you contribute to paying for it. If you don't drive on the road, you don't contribute.

An all-private school system is the ideal model for a school system because it seems to be capitalism at its finest: If your child goes to the school, you contribute to paying for it. If your child doesn't go to the school, you don't contribute.

Right?

Or is it possible that society in general benefits from the infrastructure, including people who don't directly use it?

by Miriam on Aug 14, 2010 1:37 pm  

Interesting point.

I am interested to see what will happen to the Greenway once Metro opens and essentially provides an alternative method of transportation to half of the population directly off the Greenway (with 2 stops between the Airport and the terminus). Currently, there are many options to go east besides the Greenway for Ashburn and Leesburg, such as Rt. 7 and Waxpool, though these are terribly congested. Rt. 7 will eventually be widened to 3 lanes (though probably not until years after the Metro is opened). I imagine at that point, the authority running the toll road would have to lower their prices to break even, which they claim they never have. Of course I always think they will lower their tolls and am always wrong. I occasionally take the road when I head out to West Virginia and it seems to have fewer and fewer cars on it each time.

by xtr657 on Aug 14, 2010 6:31 pm  

Jasper asks: "And how exactly is the DE TP different from the NJ TP?"

Totally different paradigm. Everyone who uses the New Jersey Turnpike pays a toll. You pass through a toll booth when you enter the road and when you exit. The Delaware Turnpike does not have "ramp tolls," that is, the only people who pay to use that road are the people who cross the state line between Delaware and Maryland on I-95. You can avoid the toll if you take the last exit in Maryland (Exit 109) going north, go about three miles out of your way via local streets, and get back on at the first exit in Delaware (Exit 1). You won't pay a cent this way since there is no toll to re-enter I-95 there. Going south, you simply reverse the process. That means the toll is essentially $4.00 for the 2.7 miles of I-95 between those two exits. (Do a Google search for "avoid Delaware Turnpike toll" if you'd like a map.) It's a totally different scenario from the New Jersey Turnpike in two ways--first, the New Jersey Turnpike is a "closed-system" toll road (also often called a "ticket system"); second, the New Jersey Turnpike doesn't have any non-tolled portions, although the Turnpike Authority itself does own a portion of "free I-95" between the northern end of the Turnpike and the GW Bridge. The Delaware Turnpike USED TO have "ramp tolls" where you'd have to throw in a quarter if you exited anywhere short of the state line, but they did away with those in the early 1980s.

Miriam tries to compare private schools as an example. I don't think the comparison works quite the same way. The parent who sends his children to private school in addition to the public school still has to pay for the public schools even though he is using the private school INSTEAD OF the public school. The driver who uses the toll road that's financed solely through tolls does not normally use SOLELY the toll road. In the example of the Greenway, he uses roads in the VDOT system (which may include the Interstates, since VDOT maintains those) to get to and from the toll road. So it's perfectly appropriate that he's also paying, through his taxes, to maintain the VDOT road system. But you're misunderstanding what I was getting at in that post. I was essentially starting with the assumption that if there are to be some toll roads, when are they acceptable? Jasper had said that all toll roads are evil and I said that I don't necessarily agree if the tolls from the road pay for it. Jasper also purports to rebut my citing of the New Jersey Turnpike by saying that people hate those tolls. I don't see how that invalidates the example, though. People hate Metro's fares, too. The tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike are used to maintain and improve that road and are not used for other projects. Other than service area revenue, no other funding goes to that road--no gas tax revenue, for example. Toll revenue is funding the extension of the quad-carriageway car/truck separation south to Exit 6. I have no objection to the continued tolling of the road when the money is used in that fashion. Where the toll is used to raise money generally for other projects throughout the state, or to allow the state to keep taxes low by charging tolls on out-of-staters, and the money is not used to pay for nor to improve that road or a key road that would provide relief to traffic on it, then I'd agree with Jasper that the toll is odious. (The part about a key road that would provide relief: The Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike is a good example. Originally the tolls were to be removed when the road was paid for, but they were extended to help fund the construction of the I-295 bypass route that diverts a lot of the long-distance traffic around Richmond and Petersburg and so keeps the traffic moving better. The tolls were then removed when I-295 was completed. Because people paying the tolls would, in the long run, benefit from the I-295 construction they were funding, that one wouldn't have bothered me much. I say "wouldn't have bothered" because I personally never drove on that road before the tolls came off, though I remember riding on that road as a passenger when I was a kid and the tolls were in place.)

I hope that clarifies the approach I was taking. I wasn't asking "should there be toll roads?" Instead, I was assuming (and I think it's a fair assumption) that there would be some toll roads and then saying that there are certain circumstances where I think tolls are permissible. Also, just to be sure I was clear, I think that tolls ought to be removed from roads once the construction is paid off UNLESS the toll revenue is the sole source of funding for that road's continued maintenance and improvement.

In theory I suppose the gas tax is also a fair way to impose a "user fee" (to cop a phrase popular among the politicians) because if you buy gas within a particular jurisdiction, then by necessity you must have driven on that jurisdiction's roads and so it's fair to ask you to help pay for their maintenance. Of course then you run into the problem of how the gas tax doesn't balance out well due to ever-improving fuel economy. That's why some people want to use GPS tracking of all cars to charge you by miles driven (an idea I find very sinister due to its Big Brotherish potential for monitoring your every move). I don't pretend to know the solution for the gas tax and I won't try to discuss it.

by Rich on Aug 15, 2010 8:48 am  

@ Rich: I don't pretend to know the solution for the gas tax and I won't try to discuss it.

The gas tax is the easiest way to make pay for driving. It's simple, impersonal (unlike GPS tracking), unavoidable and directly hits citizens in their pockets giving them something to think about. It's not an untested theory, as everybody who has filled up in Europe knows. In fact, the high gas taxes are often a direct citizens request when asked how to pay for more roads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing

by Jasper on Aug 15, 2010 2:13 pm  

Jasper, I understand what you're saying in your last post, but when I said I don't pretend to know the solution for the gas tax I meant that I don't know what the best way is to address the conundrum that the gas tax revenue drops as cars get more and more fuel-efficient. That is, everyone agrees that, on balance, it's desirable for cars to use less fuel. ("Fuel" to include diesel, CNG, whatever.) However, the less fuel used, the lower the fuel tax revenue. That's where the problem comes in--how do you balance the need to raise revenue with the need to keep the tax level acceptable to the citizenry? (And yes, I'm WELL aware of how much a litre of diesel costs in the UK from renting cars there.) It's also fair to recognize that raising the gas tax when the economy is in the toilet poses additional problems due to the potential negative effects the higher tax would have on the economy.

by Rich on Aug 15, 2010 5:33 pm  

Delaware got rid of the ramp tolls along I-95 due to public outcry over having to pay a dime at the exit and entrances (tolled entering northbound and exiting southbound). The legislators agreed to keep the barrier toll as a source of revenue for DelDOT in lieu of gas tax hikes.

The JFK Memorial Highway (in both Maryland and Delaware, as the toll roads came to be known) were grandfathered in to the interstate system and allowed to keep its tolls because it was being planned at a time when federal funding for the segment between I-695 in Maryland (Baltimore Beltway) and the Maryland State Line (Northeastern Expressway) and from the Maryland Line to DE-141 (Delaware Turnpike) was not available.

Maryland only tolls northbound on their segment of road - after the Tydings Bridge in Cecil County. They ripped out the southbound tolls back in the mid 1990's and removed ramp tolls due to vandalism and costs of collection in the 1970's.

One difference between the NJ Turnpike and Delaware Turnpike, the NJ Turnpike serves primarily thru traffic - all of which pays a toll, while local traffic in south Jersey uses nearby free I-295, which has a lot more interchanges. In Delaware along the Turnpike jurisdiction of I-95, about 60% of the traffic gets on/off in Delaware and doesn't pay the toll at the state line. It is more a commuter road.

The Greenway toll system isn't all that unusual. Along the Turner Turnpike in Oklahoma, there is only one mainline barrier - at which you pay a toll and at the exits approaching it, you either get a receipt at the mainline or upon entry to reduce the amount of the toll based on traveling a distance shorter than the full length.

by Just Passing By on Aug 15, 2010 7:31 pm  

Echoing Joey's comment of:

"... On the other hand, I'd argue that it'd be beneficial to encourage those commuters to move to Herndon or Reston or Vienna or Annandale (all currently built up) rather than Ashburn ..."

It looks like land on the southern side of the Vienna/Fairfax Metro has recently been cleared. Does this mean that life has been born again into the MetroWest project? Does anyone have any insights or news?

Thx.

by L. Fairfax on Aug 15, 2010 11:57 pm  

This makes more sense than charging tolls for people to enter the District--easier to implement and enforce, and despite the usual whining (this is Metro DC--whine away), it's been put in place.

by Rich on Aug 16, 2010 12:08 am  

@ Rich: It's also fair to recognize that raising the gas tax when the economy is in the toilet poses additional problems due to the potential negative effects the higher tax would have on the economy.

Listen, if you want to raise extra revenue, people will have to pay more. It does not matter how they do it. So whichever way the money is collected does not really matter from an economic point of view (except if look at nitty-gritty economics, but that's beyond the point here).

The point is that an increased gas tax is a very easy to implement, very easy to understand and very direct tax on driving. If you want to discourage driving, it does not come easier than that.

I am not gonna hold my breath worrying about the reduction of gas sales due to more efficient cars. That's gonna take a while, because cars last a while. In that time span, it's easy enough to do something with the gas tax.

BTW: In the Netherlands, the government passed (part of) the gas tax increase immediately back to the people by eliminating the annual road tax, based on the weight of the car.

by Jasper on Aug 16, 2010 10:38 am  

The Greenway tolling scheme forces would-be users onto alternative roads, namely Route 28 and Waxpool. Because of the availibility of nearby non-tolled facilities, the Greenway tolls do not serve as an effective barrier.

I'd advise you to look at regions which have toll roads as the only way in and out--namely the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel between Virginia's Eastern Shore and Virginia Beach. The road is 17 miles long, and separates booming suburban Virginia Beach from rural Northampton County. The toll one way is $10. Back in the 1990s, Governor Gilmore appointed more than a few members to the CTB who favored lowering the tolls. As a result, one in 10 Eastern Shore residents came out against the proposal, fearing it would induce sprawl. The CTB backed down, and the $10 one-way tolls remain. Consequently, suburban growth has been hampered (despite some modest subdivisions being built around Cape Charles in recent years. While those subdivisions may appear to be a "boom" in development, it really is limited due to the number of people who are willing to pay $20 in tolls each day. That, I believe, is a prime example of limiting growth through tolls.

by Andrew Painter on Aug 19, 2010 4:26 pm  

Joey,
It has to be a very dull and soulless person who will decide on a home and community on the basis of tolls. Buyers, (who are occasionally even women, Joey) decide on homes or a multiplicity of factors including schools, recreation, worship, aging parents, ill siblings, extended family, families reaching multiple workplaces, and, gasp, aesthetics. Your toll system does not change these fundamental factors but merely exacts economic punishment of those who have deeper values than the price of the commute and is a regressive tax on those forced by economics to live at greater distances from the city center.

by Caroline Schroder on Aug 22, 2010 12:25 pm  

@Caroline,

First, it is not my toll system. I'm simply finding the existing arrangement interesting and wondering whether it might be a particular method of tolling in the future in a way that is both legal in Virginia and possibly effective at some level.

You're absolutely correct that no one will choose a home based on tolls alone. But someone who chooses only on factors of "schools, recreation, worship, aging parents, ill siblings, extended family, families reaching multiple workplaces, and, gasp, aesthetics" isn't internalizing the cost of an additional car (or three) on the road, more spread-out and expensive water and sewer systems, more expensive emergency response services, and environmental damage.

When the cost of one's behavior is internalized (rather than subsidized by society as a whole, then divided along other lines per the income and property tax codes), it can become a factor just like all the others you mentioned. No one factor is exclusively dominant, but they all play together. Right now, the economic/transportation factor barely plays at all because "driving just one more exit" doesn't have much of an impact on a single individual, while it costs everyone else much more through your subsidy.

The truth is that most people choose homes further out not because they're closer to jobs, recreation, worship, etc., but because these people can find larger (or more spread out) homes for the same price as smaller homes closer in, precisely because there aren't as many jobs, recreation, centers of worship, etc. in the new places.

When the cost of services and transportation is included in one's economic calculation (as opposed to shoved off for everyone else to pay for the new resident via subsidies), studies around the world show that most people start to decide that they're willing to accept a smaller (or more closely spaced) home in a less far-out location.

Americans lived in much smaller and denser housing for hundreds of years. It wasn't until the 1950s (and again in spurts in the 1970s and 1990s) when people decided they wanted/needed so much more space (and on the backs of people subsidizing them, to boot).

by Joey on Aug 22, 2010 12:39 pm  

And that's why people buy townhomes in Loudoun,for all "the larger homes..." not "closely spaced..."

"Americans lived in much smaller and denser housing for hundreds of years. It wasn't until the 1950s (and again in spurts in the 1970s and 1990s) when people decided they wanted/needed so much more space (and on the backs of people subsidizing them, to boot)." Really, all that farm population across the country? The Hudson Valley was empty until 1950?

How many children have you raised? Any? What drove people out to the suburbs in the '50's and the decades since was schools-- and the chance to escape the concrete cities. Since suburban and ex-urban life have become embedded in society, people will continue to live in the suburbs, moving outwards for complex reasons.

Believe that your recreation is not everyone else's recreation, that some people split the difference between two spouses' jobs in separate directions, that people move to an area for a specific church community, that they move closer to family in an outlying area, that they move to an area for the school district and commute for the children's sake. Clever punitive toll schemes are simply a regressive tax on their freedom of choice.

by Caroline Schroder on Aug 25, 2010 7:53 pm  

@Caroline, a toll wouldn't change one's "freedom" of making a choice in housing -- it would just prevent everyone else from subsidizing that person's choice.

One could choose between, say, a 2200 square foot 4-bedroom townhouse in Ashburn over a comparably priced 1500 square foot 3-bedroom townhouse in Annandale. Choose whatever you like. They're the same sales price. You've decided you want to have a larger space and not have your children double-up in rooms.

The problem is that while they're cost-neutral to you, they're not to everyone else. Everyone else is paying for your decision to choose a larger house in the exurbs. In congestion. In inefficient services. In pollution.

Is it fair that other people can afford that same larger house closer in? That's not really the issue as much as it's not the issue in choosing whether to purchase a luxury item or not.

Does it impact your freedom of choice that a BMW 5 series costs $50k when a used Taurus might be $3k? You're welcome to make whatever choices you like, but I don't think you should necessarily be entitled to make a more expensive choice but force everyone else help pay for it.

(As a note: I live in a townhouse that was originally 800 sf, but which has been expanded to about 1200 square feet with three bedrooms (incl. the one in the basement), a tiny yard, great schools, and a park a block away. I could easily raise 2 children in this space (and more if I were willing to make them bunk as my parents had to in the 1950s). For the same sales price, I could have bought a much larger house in the exurbs -- but it would have saddled everyone else in the County or State with extra costs for my decision.)

You keep shouting that it's unfair and breaching your freedoms. I want everyone to have their freedom of choice, but not if it means everyone else has to pay for it.

by Joey on Aug 25, 2010 8:08 pm