The PG’s editorial board implored the Obama Administration to grant Pennsylvania its wish to place tolls on Interstate 80 and use the toll proceeds to subsidize other transportation needs (roads, bridges, and mass transit) around the state. Recall that the application (tolling I-80 is the centerpiece of the Commonwealth’s transportation strategy under Act 44) was rejected in September 2008.
The reasons? Simply put, tolling I-80 to use for general transportation spending would run afoul of the requirements of the Interstates Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Program by not using toll revenues for the maintenance of the road being tolled and there was no estimate of the economic impact on counties abutting the interstate.
A new administration cannot circumvent this rationale unless the interstate tolling law is changed. It is a lot more that “regional resistance” as the editorial put it. And it goes further than concern over a shortfall in the Port Authority’s budget (where are all the savings from the last contract negotiation?). Pennsylvania is trying to get permission to place a user fee on a road and use the proceeds to fund other needs, much of which would be lost under the inefficient and bloated Turnpike Commission. The last time they asked they were denied: now the PG feels that the “arguments for tolling are stronger”? How exactly?
