Lawmakers Want USDOT to Again Have Veto Power Regarding Toll Rates
Prompted by toll increases in the New York metropolitan region, members of Congress
introduced legislation last week to give the U.S. transportation secretary authority to
oversee rates charged on federal-aid highways, bridges, and tunnels.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, and Rep. Michael Grimm, R-New York, said the federal
government should have the ability to determine whether toll charges are "fair"
to drivers -- and to order them lowered if they are not, The Hill reported .
" When it costs $12 to drive your car across a bridge in America, something is wrong
," Lautenberg said in a statement. "While the Port Authority [of New York and
New Jersey] and the two states are struggling to explain why these dramatic hikes were
imposed, commuters are suffering."
Lautenberg, sponsor of S 2006 (the Commuter Protection Act) , added there's a clear
need for federal oversight to make sure toll revenue is being used appropriately. He noted
the measure would return authority to the U.S. Department of Transportation that it
previously had until 1987.
"Given these out-of-control toll hikes and the cloud of misinformation surrounding
them, these federal protections for commuters need to be restored," Lautenberg said.
Grimm said in a statement that the bipartisan legislation "brings oversight of toll
rates on our nation's federally funded highway system back into the Department of
Transportation, where it belongs."
The International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike Association released a statement Tuesday
opposing the Commuter Protection Act.
"The act would add an unnecessary layer of federal oversight in what is largely a
state and local process," IBTTA Executive Director and CEO Patrick Jones said in the
statement. "In addition, it may constrain public and private investment in
infrastructure at a time when Congress is looking to encourage further transportation
investment."
Jones pointed out that most toll agency boards in America are composed of appointed or
elected officials.
"These boards review and approve toll rate increases and provide robust oversight of
agency investments and operations," he said. "This structure makes these boards
attentive to and accountable to local taxpayers and voters. The addition of a federal
review and approval process takes decision making away from the state and regional
authorities that are ultimately accountable for the level of transportation investment and
its consequences on local quality of life and regional economic competitiveness."
Supporters of the legislation include AAA's New York and New Jersey chapters, the
American Trucking Associations, the American Highway Users Alliance, the American
Motorcyclist Association, and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
ATA President and CEO Bill Graves issued a statement last Friday thanking Lautenberg and
Grimm for sponsoring the Commuter Protection Act. USDOT should have power to put a stop to
unreasonable toll increases, he said.
"Having seen the toll increase proposed by the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, they are acutely aware of the negative impact of allowing toll agencies unchecked
power to raise tolls for whatever reason they want," Graves said. " There are a
number of reasons why tolling is bad public policy, but that policy gets worse when the
tolls are raised without consideration for the users of highways and bridges and the
revenue generated is not dedicated for their benefit."
As a matter of policy, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials consistently has worked to provide states with maximum flexibility to toll.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajiv Bhatia" <Rajiv.Bhatia(a)sfdph.org>
To: "TRB Health and Transportation" <h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net>
Cc: "TRB Health and Transportation" <h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net>et>, "Gary
Toth" <garytoth51(a)gmail.com>om>, h+t--friends-bounces(a)chrispy.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:05:27 PM
Subject: Re: [H+T--Friends] Health Impact Assessment of Road Pricing
Mark and Gary:
Thank you for the spirited back and forth dialogue on the road pricing
health impact assessment. I strongly agree that transporation investments
have historically been horribly inquitable and appreciate the efforts by
Tom Sanchez, Karen Lucas, and others to document this fact.
As discussed in Sanchez's 2003 report, disproportionate impacts are not
only those on access and mobility but also those on environmental hazards
including noise, air pollution and traffic safety hazards. Historically,
there has been minimal consideration of all transporation-related health
and environmental justice impats in project planning and environmental
review. My organization has a strong committment to social environmental
justice and has been working (successfully) to identify and prevent
inequitable impacts of health and transportation planning in San Francisco
County for over 10 years. Our study on road pricing focused on outcomes
primarily other than those on access or mobility, particularly
environmental hazards of transport system operations on health which are
also disproportionately felt by low income communities nationally. Our
study included an equity analyis based on the distribution of the area
density of VMT-- a proxy for vehicle-related environmental hazards.
The San Francisco Road/ Congestion Pricing proposal is being subject to
extensive analysis and our HIA is just one component. The primary study on
the project was conducted by the County Transporation Authority. That
study included equity impacts. Our study was intended to complement but not
duplicate the SFCTA study. Their study is linked to our road pricing HIA
website or at the following URL:
http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/302/148.
The city is still very much considering the desirability and feasibility of
road pricing. If the project moves forward from the conceptual to the
design phase it will likely be subject to additional environmental,
economic, and equity analysis. I believe that the design will be responsive
to the needs of low income communities.
Finally, I would like to point out that San Francisco has historically
prioritized funding in its local control to intra-urban public transit.
For example, the city allocates a share of the sales tax to transportation
(Prop K funds) and 74% of those transporation funds are directed to
transit or para-transit.
http://www.sfcta.org/images/stories/Programming/propk/Expenditure_Plan_Summ…
Thank you for your interest in our study.
Rajiv
(Embedded image moved to file: pic12139.jpg)
mbrenman001@comca
st.net
Sent by: To
h+t--friends-boun Gary Toth <garytoth51(a)gmail.com>
ces(a)chrispy.net cc
TRB Health and Transportation
<h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net>
12/21/2011 09:47 Subject
AM Re: [H+T--Friends] Health Impact
Assessment of Road Pricing
Please respond to
TRB Health and
Transportation
<h+t--friends@chr
ispy.net>
Hi Gary, you might want to take a look at Tom Sanchez' and my 2007 book,
The Right to Transportation, from the American Planning Association, where
we discuss many of these issues and offer some recommendations. Also, in
Spring 2012, Island Press will publish our new book, "Planning as if People
Matter: Governing and Equity," where we extend some of the concepts to
other forms of infrastructure, directed at the planning profession. You
might also want to take a look at the excellent work done by Public
Advocates, Inc. in San Francisco, and The City Project in Los Angeles,
working with and on behalf of organizations like Urban Habitat and the Bus
Riders Union.
Good first steps include excellent mass transit systems, especially buses,
that cross jurisdictional lines easily.
Reducing and eliminating economically regressive flat taxes like per gallon
gasoline, sales taxes, congestion pricing, and tolling are good ideas.
Eliminating the extravagant transportation subsidies provided to higher
income Anglo commuters would be a good idea. For example, each Golden Gate
Ferry ride in San Francisco Bay from Marin to SF costs about $28, but the
charge to riders on monthly passes is about $5.28. This is an example of
how the issues are broader than cars.
Deepsixing the idiocy of California High Speed Rail is another excellent
idea. That system would have no benefits whatsoever for low income people,
while sucking off investments that could go to improving mass transit bus
services, which are undergoing severe cuts.
In terms of your example of long commutes to jobs for low income people, a
partial solution would be to have metropolitan planning organizations
include such issues as employment around airports in their plans. Last
year, Bay Area Rapid Transit tried to run a line to Oakland International
Airport with no stops at the minority and low income neighborhoods along
the way. The San Francisco Metropolitan Planning Commission bears some
responsibility for these Bay Area transportation problems.
Means testing benefits such as Medicare, Social Security, and farmer
welfare are good ideas.
Making the income tax system more progressive would be very good. High
income people and corporations like GE should pay their fair share of
taxes.
Eliminating the legal fiction of corporations as persons would be
excellent.
Keeping jobs in the US would be very good. An example of this is the
recent idiocy of having $400 million in New San Francisco Bay Bridge parts
built in China, when they could have been built at the ex-NUMI factory in
the East Bay, and at the ex-Oakland Army Base and ex-Alameda Naval Air
Station.
Gentrification is a very complicated concept, with pros and cons. It
crosses racial lines. For example, in Anacostia, a neighborhood of
Washington, DC, middle class African-Americans are gentrifying a
traditional working class African-American neighborhood, because of the
good housing stock, proximity to downtown DC, and good views.
These are just a very few ideas and considerations in response to your
excellent questions.
Marc
From: "Gary Toth" <garytoth51(a)gmail.com>
To: mbrenman001(a)comcast.net
Cc: "TRB Health and Transportation" <h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 9:12:34 AM
Subject: Re: [H+T--Friends] Health Impact Assessment of Road Pricing
So Marc, what is your solution? I have heard many others rise concerns
about gentrification over the years, but few solutions. As a silly old
engineer, I am left to conclude that the default solution is to allow
neighborhoods to continue to suffer because that depresses the price of the
housing stock.
Seven or eight years ago, I had the good fortune to sit at a lunch table
with two major advocates of minorities and low income populations. Since
as an engineer just learning about the good and the bad associated with
Smart Growth, New Urbanism, Context Sensitive Solutions ... I shared my
concerns with these two folks who had devoted their careers to supporting
social equity. Their answer:
The solution to affordable housing and social equity is to not stop making
improvements/investments that raise property values and rebalance the
transportation system. NO NO Absolutely NO, I was told, the solution is
not to perpetuate "slums", it is TO MAKE EVERY OTHER PLACE WALKABLE AND
MIXED USE. Who are we kidding -- I was told -- "do critics raising the
gentrification flag honestly believe that folks are better off where they
are."
When I went back to my work at NJ Department of Transportation, the meaning
of what these two folks told me became more clear. One of the problems
my office had to solve was how to deal with the ordeal that low income wage
earners faced in commuting 90 minutes to two hours from "affordable"
neighborhoods in inner cities to the job supply in car oriented suburbs.
Low income workers often had to take two to three buses because of the
suburban densities and car orientation -- the result of pricing the system
to advantage middle income car owners. When they got to the work site,
they were dropped of onto a high speed 100% car oriented arterial designed
to cater to the middle class car owners -- and literally, their were
several fatalities a year, involving workers trying to dash across the
roadway to get from the bus stop to the worksite. It became clear that
the system was planned, designed and priced -- rigged -- to further
disenfranchise this already struggling segment of our population.
So, I ask again, what is your solution if it is not rebalancing the system
by pricing, smart growth, and multimodal transportation? Does your
analysis about the Boston to Washington corridor reveal how many of the
unemployed and minimum wage families can afford multiple cars and whether
they can afford the gas to make those 500 mile commutes? Am I wrong in
presuming that minimum wage folks are less likely to own Prius's and more
likely to own -- if at all -- a gas guzzler?
Please consider this a serious question. As a transportation engineer, I
am still trying to learn who to deal with the inequities of a car oriented
transportation system.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM, <mbrenman001(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Hi Gary, this is based on a per trip cost, due to lack of discretionary
income to pay for tolls. A twenty to fifty year period is just too long
to make useful estimates for. The pricing estimates are almost always
too low, by 40 to 200% percent, for large projects, and the ridership
estimates too high. Both of these factors were in evidence in the Cal
High Speed Rail project. In the case of San Francisco, the study cited,
very few low income people still live in the city, since rent control
(another initiative that seemed like a good idea at the time) is
destroying the housing stock and raising rents through the roof to the
moon. Seemingly good initiatives like light rail down Third Street to
Bay View/Hunter's Point are creating gentrification that is driving out
the last African-American community in SF.
Those who like congestion pricing, tolls, and cordons say that much of
the revenue from them will be devoted to better mass transit, but this
has happened nowhere in the US, and in only a couple of cities in
Scandinavia. And California, even the Bay Area, isn't Scandinavia...In
the US, the tolls go almost entirely to paying for the tolling system,
including the salaries of those who administer it, the private
contractors who provide the electronic sensing equipment and software,
and the law enforcement officials who enforce it.
If you want to see evidence of how tolls work in practice, drive
north-south on the East Coast. One can easy pay over $30 in tolls from
DC to Boston, one-way. If I'm unemployed or earning minimum wage, how
will I pay that? And gas and insurance and maintenance. I might get
forced onto a “chinatown” bus. This will still cost me about $48 one
way. Lower income people already pay a higher percent of their family
income on transportation than higher income people. Imposition of
congestion pricing, tolls, and cordons just sticks it to them more. One
end result is less social and physical mobility, and less ability to get
to jobs. One can say, well, those folks should just take public
transportation. But shouldn’t they have the same choices as other people
in the US? And many jobs, shopping, and educational opportunities can’t
be accessed by public transportation without a huge investment in time.
So lower income people forced onto public transportation often become
time poor as well.
Marc
From: "Gary Toth" <garytoth51(a)gmail.com>
To: "TRB Health and Transportation" <h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net>et>,
mbrenman001(a)comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 2:51:50 PM
Subject: Re: [H+T--Friends] Health Impact Assessment of Road Pricing
Marc, is your conclusion based on a study of the overall life cycle of
how congestion pricing can change land use and transportation
infrastructure over a 20 to 50 year period, or is it based on the
immediate per trip cost? Also, if you are citing a study, did that
study evaluate how many of the lower income folks are commuting in from
the suburbs, as opposed to already living within the "priced zone" and
therefore who might benefit from a re-pricing of the trip into the
center?
Gary
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:26 PM, <mbrenman001(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Unfortunately, congestion and road pricing have economically regressive
effects on low income people.
Marc Brenman
Social Justice Consultancy
mbrenman001(a)comcast.net
240-676-2436
From: "Megan Wier" <Megan.Wier(a)sfdph.org>
To: h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:18:27 AM
Subject: [H+T--Friends] Health Impact Assessment of Road Pricing
Hi everyone -
I wanted to share the following report summarizing the findings of a
health impact assessment (HIA) of a potential road pricing program in
San Francisco conducted by the San Francisco Department of Public
Health's Program on Health, Equity and Sustainability as I thought it
may be of interest to the list. The HIA was completed this Fall with
funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Active Living
Research
Program. A summary and detailed technical report of the findings are
available at:
http://www.sfphes.org/HIA_Road_Pricing.htm.
For the HIA analysis, SFDPH used a variety of methods to assess
potential transportation-related health effects - including air
quality-related premature mortality, traffic noise-related annoyance
and
heart attacks, injury to pedestrians and cyclists, and health
benefits
from active transportation – and evaluated health-related equity
effects
and associated economic value. The HIA found that transportation
system
operation in San Francisco has substantial health burdens and
benefits
today. Health burdens are expected to increase in the future owing
to
increasing motor vehicles on local roadways and increasing population
densities in already congested areas. However, there are also
estimated
increases in active transportation (walking and biking) that bring
some
health benefits and save lives. Road pricing, if implemented, could
moderate but not entirely eliminate the changes associated with a
future
under “business as usual” that includes increasing populations and
traffic and no new policies or funding to manage the transportation
system. Road pricing could also generate significant economic value
by
reducing transportation-related adverse effects and increasing
walking
and biking. HIA recommendations include increasing congestion
pricing
fees where they can reduce health risks (e.g., on spare the air days)
and investing in targeted infrastructure to reduce pedestrian and
cyclist injury and increase active transportation.
Thank you, and happy holidays!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Megan L. Wier, MPH, Epidemiologist
Program on Health, Equity and Sustainability
San Francisco Department of Public Health
phone: 415-252-3972, fax: 415-252-3964
Megan.Wier(a)sfdph.org
www.sfphes.org
_______________________________________________
H+T--Friends mailing list
H+T--Friends(a)chrispy.net
http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/h+t--friends
_______________________________________________
H+T--Friends mailing list
H+T--Friends(a)chrispy.net
http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/h+t--friends
--
609-397-3885
--
Gary
609-468-2943 (c)
_______________________________________________
H+T--Friends mailing list
H+T--Friends(a)chrispy.net
http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/h+t--friends
_______________________________________________
H+T--Friends mailing list
H+T--Friends(a)chrispy.net
http://ryoko.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/h+t--friends