proposed toll increase on the Greenway

When I got the first Scott York e-mail, I was a little perturbed, but hey, I had posted to a public website with my e-mail address (SCC). Now, it's just getting silly. He is SOO obviously trying to attach his name to this issue and garner addresses to spread that message further so he can get re-elected. I have not decided if I will vote for him or not, but this kind of political maneuvering is ridiculously transparent.

--Joy

P.S. I sent a version of this message to York as well.

 

I would think we should be greatful that Scott York has "attached his name to this issue", that is, if you're against the toll increase. Of course, it's political, but do we care if he helps to get the toll increase shot down? You don't have to back him politically to appreciate his efforts to get this disapproved.

 

Another update sent in:

---------------
Got Broadband?

 

Another update from Scott:
---------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:04:34 -0500
From: "Scott York" <SYORK@loudoun.gov> Add to Address Book
Subject: My Testimony Opposing Greenway Toll Hike




The following is my testimony submitted to the SCC today at its public hearing this afternoon in Loudoun County.
==========
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to join with you to express my opposition to the proposal by the owners of the Dulles Greenway to increase the toll cap by 50%.

As the staff of the SCC has noted in its pre-filed testimony, countless residents of Loudoun County and the region have contacted the SCC to express their opposition to the proposed toll hike scheme. The reasons to oppose the proposed hike in the toll cap have varied, but I would like to share my concerns and that of the residents of my County.

1. The application by the owners of the Greenway basically says one simple thing: "give us the money and trust us on how to spend it". Quite frankly, that is what my teenage daughter says when asking for money to go to the mall. Based upon that premise alone, the SCC should deny this application.

No where do the owners of the Greenway in their application tie any increase in the toll to specific capital improvements to improve this roadway. Only briefly the owners mention the need for such improvements. Any toll increase to be considered by the SCC must be tied to real, tangible improvements and not money to be put into the pockets of the investors.

2. Based upon the pre-filed testimony of SCC staff it appears the operators of the Greenway are in violation of the Commission's 1990 order with respect to distance based tolls.

When one reads carefully the hundreds of citizen comments regarding this proposed toll hike scheme two things clearly come to the forefront: a) the toll should be reduced to attract more usage; and, b) distance based tolls would make the road more attractive to residents who live closer to the main toll booth plaza but avoid using the roadway because they are charged full freight for a one or two exit ride.

3. The shocking revelation that the owners of the Greenway are considering the implementation of time-of-day pricing which would have considerable negative impact on local roadways should not be allowed to occur. As the SCC pre-filed testimony points out, "it may have the unintended consequence of moving some rush hour traffic from the Dulles Greenway to Route 7 and Route 28, causing greater congestion on those routes."

If there is one thing all of the residents of our County would agree upon is that Routes 7 and 28 are difficult at best during rush hour - why should we allow them to become worse? Not only do I concur with the SCC staff as to the impact of such a proposal, but I believe that a toll hike in general would cause greater congestion on local roadways.

4. I believe the SCC must require more than a simple legal notice in local papers to serve as public notice. Thousands upon thousands of Greenway users go about their daily routine unaware the owners want to raise the toll. And, if a toll increase is approved, they are greeted with a sign by the tollbooth announcing the date of the toll increase. That is wrong! I believe that the SCC should make as part of its decision an improved public notification process that would require the owners of the Greewnay to publicize their request for an increase in a much more comprehensive manner.

5. The SCC staff mentions in its report that Loudoun County is a relatively affluent area. While this may be true, we are also the second fastest growing County in the country, placing an enormous burden on taxpayers to pay for the infrastructure necessary to educate our children, for parks, for libraries and public safety. Meanwhile the State has failed to keep its end of the bargain in helping our County meet these basic service needs. Some commuters have written that if the full toll hike were implemented it would cost them in excess of $2000 per year for their family. For many families that is more than what they pay annually in income taxes to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The residents of Loudoun should not be penalized because somehow they are viewed to be more affluent than some of their neighbors - in fact, many are not. Furthermore, the impact on our small business owners who would see their toll on trucks increase by up to $2 would negatively impact our local economy and in my opinion force heavy truck traffic onto local roads.

I would like to conclude by thanking the SCC for coming to Loudoun County as the residents and the Board of Supervisors requested. It is important for you to hear first hand the impact this proposed toll hike scheme would have on the residents and businesses of our County.

My request is simple. Say NO to this highway robbery.

I urge the SCC to order the owners to implement the distance based tolls they were required to do so under previous SCC order and I urge the owners of the Greenway to reduce the toll if they are interested in generating more revenue. There has been ample public comment indicating that usage would go up if the tolls were reduced. We certainly would like to see less traffic on Route 7 and Route 28 and I believe lowering the toll would accomplish that while generating increased revenue for the ownership.



---------------
Got Broadband?

 

I love it when conservatives see a woman with 5 kids, making minimum wage, who can't afford to pay her heat bill and say 'she had options'.

They feel their small contribution to the tax base should be more than sufficient to provide roads, schools, law enforcement, and public safety even when they have 5 kids in the school system.

It's funny how when something affects their pocketbooks they all jump on the bandwagon. I say 'you have options'. If you don't like the toll increase then don't take the toll road.

I also find it funny that they take every opportunity, tax break, loophole etc to keep a buck in their pocket, but heaven forbid someone else makes a profit, especially with their money.

These toll road owners are probably one of your own... you should be backing them, not hindering them. Besides bigger tax payments by businesses to the county leave room for bigger residential tax breaks.

 

Ericlva: I thought that it was funny, too, when I heard that Scott York and the other right-wingers were crying about the proposed toll increase. (Boo hoo!) I didn't think anybody else so the irony. So called "conservatives" are all about putting the screws to those less fortunate, but don't you dare try to take an extra quarter from them, or they will go postal! Personally, I would pay the extra $$$ in tolls if they would take the ownership away from big business and give control over the Commonwealth. Roads should be a public property, not a mechanism for corporate greed. Also, low-income families should be exempted from paying the tolls, or there should be some sliding scale at least.

 

Chris,

Just how do you propose this be implemented or enforced? Bet the black market for "low income" transponders would be a thriving business. Of course, that would mean that the toll would have to be raised even higher to make up for the lost toll income. Or, would someone just show their tax return at the toll gate to pass through free?

Maybe you forgot that no one is forced to use the toll road if they can't afford it, so why should "low income" families be exempt from the toll?

 

It's not about politics. It's about corporate greed. The Greeway is not making enough of a profit for it's shareholders because of the debt they incurred by building the roads. The toll is already insanely over priced. It's supposed to be a distance based toll. And, they should have been able to project their profit/debt ratio when they built it! Interest Rates have crashed since then. There is a problem within their group, they should suck it up not us.

That road should have been public. It cuts the county in half and not using that road would devastate 7 and waxpool since there are NO other options.

 

Chris,
I find it rather interesting that you admonish forum users for using disparaging remarks about a group of people, even if tongue in cheek, then you go and do the same thing. The word postal is very insulting to the hard working men and women of the U.S. postal service. By making such a statement you equate all postal workers with being mass murdering psycho maniacs. I think it's just terrible that you can joke about the tragedies that have taken place. People have died, children left orphaned and you use it as a punch line. You should look in a mirror before you start casting stones fella.

P.S. I hope y'all realize I am being sarcastic here.

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
- Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956

 

There are many options! I get regular statements about my usage of the toll-road, so they can easily track who is passing through the lanes, for Gosh's sake. For low-income families, they Masters of the Toll could charge a reduced rate based on family income. For super low-income families, the toll could be waved. Come on! We live in technologically advanced Lo. Co. Something this basic should be do-able!

This is the type of fundamentalist ultra right-wing "ME, ME, ME only" thinking that tells low-income families that "If you don't have enough money to afford food for your kids, then put them on a diet. You're probably fat any way like the rest of America." Could someone please show a little human compassion at least over the holidays?

 

Op_dude:

I would never say anything against the Postal Service! To be clear, what I said was:

In context, "postal" means "after everyone" from the Latin "post" for after and "al" all or everyone. As you all know, it is deadly to even try to get the Greedy Old Party (GOP) to pay a 1/2 cent tax!

 

OP Dude- Careful or this thread is going to be locked. You can’t be sarcastic here or you get censored.

Homer- I agree with you. The toll increase is ALL about greed. Tolls should not be increased just so the VP’s for the Greenway can have an even bigger house. The owners took a chance in making the toll road- I didn’t. Why should I have to pay more for their miscalculation of how much money they could squeeze out of commuters? They knew about their debt going into this, they should actually be doing better then predicted because the interest rates are so low. They make plenty of money off of that road, ad making more each day as the amount of traffic has increased on it.

Ericlva – don’t feel bad for the owners of the toll road. If they own the toll road, then I doubt they are suffering. I am sure they make plenty of money.

 

The investors/owners of the toll road took a chance. Some investments pay off some don't. That's business. I would, however, like to know where these people got their business training. Any other business would lower prices to increase volume and hopefully revenue. If tolls are raised there will most likely be fewer people using the road thus adversely affecting revenue.
As for the "sliding scale toll". I have compassion for the less fortunate but, I don't feel prices should be relative to a person's income. Would you force gas stations to have lower prices for lower income families? What about airlines or retail? It's unfortunate that some folks have to decide between the expense of hopping on the Greenway vs. taking the long way but that's life.

 

Chris,

Do you know how to post anything without name calling or presuming to know everyone's political position or orientation?

It's a fact of life that not everyone has the same income level; therefore, not everyone can afford the same things. It's also a fact of life that we should not expect corporations to sell things or provide services at different cost levels based on someone's income level. Does the company you work for do this?

How about the Concord? Not everyone could afford to take it between the US and Europe, so did you expect Air France or British Airways to reduce the fare based on your income? Or, was there another cheaper way to make the same trip, although it took longer? Sort of like taking the Greenway if you can afford it, or taking Rt. 7 if you can't or choose not to pay the toll.

 

She did have options. It's called BIRTH CONTROL. You don't have kids you can't afford.

If you do have kids you can't afford, don't go whining about how expensive the toll road is or how you can't put winter coats on the kids or you need other people to buy them Christmas presents.

And what is up with these kids asking for Playstations and designer clothes on the Angel Tree at the mall? That's my definition of greed.

 

smythla - I completely agree. However, the toll doesn't just effect those who do not have a lot of money (or have a lot of kids they can't pay for). I make a decent living, enough so that I could have a pretty big house if I lived somewhere else, and I don't have any kids yet.

I am still effected by the price of the toll road. I commute 1.5 hours to work each day and if I didn't take the toll road it would be closer to 2-hours each way. I don't even Have kids or a big house and the toll road just profits from my misery. If I didn't have such a long commute I wouldn't take it.

 

I guess it's good to see that not everyone agrees w/ the 'Christian Right', (which is neither by the way.
Since they believe we should take sex ed out of school and quit spending money educating the public about safe sex and birth control. Especially since it's easier to not spend money teaching abstinence which we ALL know works so well.

So you say people who don't learn about sex from their parents should be allowed to get the education from our public school system?

That would certainly have taught hypothetical woman about her OPTIONS. Besides how do we know that hypothetical woman wasn't some suburban housewife who stayed at home w/ her 5 kids then her loving 'promise keeping' husband took off w/ his secretary and she had to fend for herself.

Not every situation is black and white... funny how it's so easy to find solutions to the problems when you don't bother to probe deeper.

 

Ha! The Promise Keepers are just a modern day 'hip' method for the subjugation of women....I'm sure some members of this forum are all for them!

Again...veering off topic.

 

You can look at it that way; however, but when did it become so improper to show compassion for those who are less fortunate?

As the classist vitriol of posts by you and smythla demonstrates, having heartfelt compassion is anathema to the Greedy Old Party (GOP).

 

ericlva: You raise an excellent point! I will bet you, however, that the fundamentalist right-wingers would still blame the woman and say:

If housewife had done a better job of keeping her "loving promise keeping husband" happy, he probably would never been forced to leave her and start anew with a proper woman.

As a side note, I prefer "domestic godess" over housewife. It really stands out on a resume. *Snap*