Greedway tolls raised again?

A TAKING -- VIA EMINENT DOMAIN -- BEFORE KELO V. NEW LONDON IS REVERSED, IS THE ANSWER!!!

P.S. Caps were used intentionally. I am pi**ed off.

 

From yesterday's Washington Post: Let's see if we can help influence the decision (Ha!Ha!Ha!)

The State Corporation Commission is seeking public comments on a proposal by the owner of the Dulles Greenway to increase tolls.

The owner, Toll Road Investors Partnership II, wants to increase the maximum toll for cars from $3 (which becomes effective July 1, 2007) to $4, which the company hopes to put into effect Jan. 1, 2012.

Toll Road Investors also wants to charge drivers 20 percent more during peak driving times.

Written comments or requests for a hearing on the application must be submitted by Sept. 28. Correspondence should be sent to: Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, Document Control Center, PO Box 2118, Richmond, Va. 23218-2118. Refer to case number PUE-2006-00081.

To submit comments electronically, visit http://www.scc.virginia.gov/caseinfo.htm . Click on "Public Notices" and then the "Submit Comments" button below to the appropriate case number.

To see the application from Toll Road Investors, go to the same Web address and click on "Docket Search" and "Search Cases" and enter the case number.

 

thank you SO much for posting this information. I went to the site and added my comments- I hope enough residents respond to make our opinions IMPOSSIBLE to ignore!

 

Do you have any additional information beahmer I am going to try and get this into the next newsletter so everyone has a chance to comment

Staci

 

Unfortunately I do not - you can review the info on the Dulles Greenway site also.
http://www.dullesgreenway.com/cgi-bin/TRIP II toll application Executive Summary 19 July 2006.pdf

I just thought it was important that people know where to send their comments - whether it helps of not we'll see.

 

The plans show the metro going all the way out to Ashburn (http://www.dullesmetro.com/stations/index.cfm). Unfortunately with all the bickering about underground or onground in Tysons it looks like there may be a substantial delay. I'm still hoping that they will go with the original plans and break ground in January.

 

Done. Who knows if it will help, but if someone doesn't attempt to do something they have no right to complain.

 

Marianne - it will in all likelyhood make it to Ashburn since the airport authority now has control and their ONLY goal is Metro to the airport, but believe they will be forced to make it all the way to Ashburn too.

As far as the delay - the longer they wait hopefully the longer the tolls on the DTR stay where they are at.

I just wish I owned a car lot in Tysons - CHA-CHING!

 

Beahmer, Thanks for the link. I have submitted comments to the SCC. I have also sent emails with my comments to Supervisor Snow, the BoS, Sen. Mark Herrring, and Del. David Poisson. I encourage all to do the same. The period for comments ends Sept 28. Here is what I submitted:

-------------

TRIP II's application for a toll increase along the Dulles Greenway should be rejected based on two points:
1. TRIP II's calculation of the benefits to the user of $9.91 during peak and $6.09 during off-peak times are not applicable to the majority of the users
2. Recovery of capital costs used to fund increases in tollway capacity should be paid for via the increased ridership that the project allows not by increased tolls.

Benefits vs. Distance
--------------------
In its application TRIP II states a total user benefit of $9.91 during peak hours and $6.09 during off-peak hours. These benefits are calculated using the basis of a Leesburg to Dulles trip. However, the majority of toll users have significantly shorter trips. The majority of Greenway users are beginning or ending their trips in Ashburn or points east, approximately half the length of the toll road or less. As such, the calculation of user benefit is not applicable to the majority of users.

Further, in its application TRIP II compares the incidence rate for accidents along the toll road versus the average accident rate in Virginia. As the average accident rate for Virginia also includes urban environments and local suburban roads with multiple intersections and turning traffic, the comparison overstates the level of benefit. A more accurate comparison, would be versus the actual accident rate along the portion of Routes 7 and 28 that compete with the toll road.

In § 56-542, the commission is empowered to set "... a toll which is set at a level which is reasonable to the user in relation to the benefit obtained..." For the above reasons, a $4.80 maximum one-way toll during peak periods for the majority of the toll road users is inconsistent with the benefits obtained.

The commission should enforce the original application basis (PUA-1990-00013) for the toll road requiring tolls to be based on the distance traveled. TRIP II's assertion that a paper based toll ticket system would be expensive and unwieldy ignores the capability of the EZ Pass system to calculate distance based tolls. Distance based tolling is the practice on the NY Thruway and the Pennsylvania Turnpike where EZ Pass/SmartTag is successfully used. TRIP II should be ordered to provide tag readers at each of the entrance and exit ramps in order to calculate a distance based toll. Those patrons who choose not to use the EZ Pass/SmartTag system would not derive a benefit of distance based tolls. This would provide an added incentive for those patrons to shift to the EZ Pass system and thereby reduce the cost of the labor associated with manual toll collection and the added facilities (more toll booths and wider approaches/exits) that are required at the main toll plaza to handle the slower cash transactions.


Recovery of Capital Costs
-------------------------
The written testimony of TRIP II's CEO, Mr. Thomas Sines, states that a toll increase is needed to help pay for the costs of increasing the roadway's capacity (ETS-12, lines 5&6). The best practice when analyzing the economics of a project to increase capacity is to use the increased revenue that the project generates as the basis for the project economics. The owner of a manufacturing plant would not make the investment to increase capacity unless he expects that the profit he will derive from the extra production will pay for the project and he would not ask his customers to pay for his project by instituting a price increase. Rather, the customer would expect a relaxation of the price as economies of scale increase. Likewise, TRIP II should not be making investments in capacity increases unless the revenue generated from that increased capacity will pay for the cost of the project plus a return. Capital costs to increase the toll road's capacity should be recovered only through the increased revenue the projects bring, not via toll increases applied to the entire user base.

For the above reasons, the commission should reject TRIP II's application for a toll increase and order TRIP II to install distance based tolling technology in accordance with the original permission to construct granted in 1990.

 

I sent my comments into the SCC too.

Thanks for posting this information.
B-

 

jim - thank you for taking the time & detail. Great points, sent my comments today. I did some quick number crunching;
2 drivers
2 cars cost
Our family spends $4,197 a year. YIKES!

Thanks again

 

Gwinnet: 726,273 according to the 2005
Fairfax: As of 2005, the estimated population of the county is 1,041,200

Loudoun has been the #1 fastest growing county for multiple years. I really doubt our traffic is better.

 

Actually Homer, we haven't been Number One for a few years now--I think last year we were #4, and the newly released figures don't even put us in the top ten this year.

Another thing to remember is that it is a percentage-based ranking: The year we WERE #1, L.A. County added more people than the total population of Loudoun that year, but didn't make the list at all because it was a drop in the bucket of their total mass, and one county (I think in one of the Carolinas) made the top 60 while adding fewer than 100. Again, percentage of total, which seems to be part of your point on the traffic issue as well.

 

Remember that the deadline for comments is Sept 28! Submit yours via the link at:

http://www.scc.virginia.gov/caseinfo/notice.aspx

Please remember to give a basis on why the application for a toll increase should be rejected. As much as it will feel good to rant that the tolls are too high, I don't think it will be an argument with much sway. My suggestions are:

1. The Greenway has calculated its benefit to customers using a trip along its full length as a basis. If the Greenway wishes to use a benefit based on the distance traveled, then it should fully implement distance based tolls. Give us the distance based tolling that was the original basis for their franchise!

2. Expansion projects to allow more volume should not be paid for by higher tolls. Rather, the revenue generated by the additional users should be how these projects are paid for.

Also, don't forget to send a note to Stephen Snow, David Poisson, and Mark Herring.

-Jim

 

Congressman Wolf recommends VSCC to reject the increase...

http://www.nbc4.com/traffic/9794449/detail.html

 

What a political manuever. Richmond is in TRIP II's back pocket. We inundated the Commissioner the last time they requested an increase and it didn't amount to a hill of beans. As long as Richmond doesn't have to spend one shiny Lincoln penny on our transportation problems, this guy will approve toll increases up to $50.00, and we're gonna keep getting screwed.

 

This time, let's make the emails have some substance other than:

Tolls are too high already
If tolls rise more, I'll take the back roads
Please give a Senior Citizens discount
They call it the Greedway for a reason
The state should condemn the land and buy it back
I work at the School Admin building and I won't be able to afford the trip
My family needs me home so I take the Greenway and I don't want to pay any more
etc. etc.

These are all responses that have been received by the SCC in this case already. While they are impassioned and tug at the heart strings it does not refute the basis upon which the request has been made.

Even Congressman Wolf's plea is just another whine, albeit one that gets some press.

-Jim

 

Barb,

Just the mere fact that we were #1 and in the top multiple years means we are way behind in roads. LA has been built up for decades. Loudoun was a farm 20 years ago with the standard VA roads. You may know Loudoun politics, but I've lived in every part of this state, Tidewater, Norther Neck, Central, Eastern Shore and Southwest.

 

If Barb can pursuade the good ol' boys in Richmond to sink some bucks into Loudoun for roads, she get's my vote for State Senator.

 

Lol, no one from here can, Richmond hates us. They just want our money w/o hearing from us.