South Africa's next tolling battle

If you’ve been following the issue of tolls to fund the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project, you’ll wonder if South African politicians would have the appetite to introduce more toll roads. After all, although tolling is meant to start on the Gauteng network by February 2012, the second phase of the project has been suspended (upsetting road contractors).

People in Cape Town are surprised that the answer is yes. The government plans to toll the N1 and N2 highways between the city and Worcester and Bot River to fund upgrades to both roads. In other words existing untolled roads will be tolled to pay for upgrades on them. People in Cape Town and the local government are opposed. The intention is to operate the toll as a 30 year concession with the upgrade costing R10 billion (US$1.26 billion).

The project covers 170kms of road and involves building around 170 culverts and bridges, widening some sections to six lanes; drilling a tunnel through Sir Lowry’s pass, and flyovers at two points on the N2 through Somerset West.

Business Day’s Cape Editor Dave Marrs says it is unjustified because “ imposing tolls on outlying commuter suburbs in the manner proposed will have a disproportionately negative effect on the poorer communities of the Cape Flats, both through direct transport costs and the knock-on effect of higher consumer good prices” and as there is little congestion on the routes, it is "difficult to justify on those grounds".

South Africa’s leading opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, is leading a campaign against the proposed toll upgrade.  The Financial Mail reports that the City of Cape Town:

declared an inter governmental dispute process with Sanral in July. It has asked that the process be halted until concerns that it has raised have been addressed.

The intention to pursue legal action, says Cape Town’s mayoral committee member for transport, roads & stormwater, Brett Herron, arose after Sanral announced the project’s preferred bidders.

The preferred bidder is the Protea Parkways Consortium, a joint venture between Group Five, Basil Read and French company Bouygues TP. 

Once the road has been upgraded, 30% of the operation and maintenance work is reserved for black companies in the first half of the 30-year concession and 80% in the second half of the concession contract according to SA Commercial Prop News.  Work is meant to begin in February 2012.

Clearly, there is a big issue.  Columns like this, which just condemn tolls, are ignorant. If tolls are a tax, then so are fares on buses and airport charges. There is no need for toll booths to collect modern tolls and the assertion about how much money it costs to collect tolls is exaggerated. The main beneficiaries of improved major highways are those using them. Those without cars shouldn’t have to pay as much as those with cars.

However, for the South African Government to have got things this wrong, indicates disenchantment with how existing motoring taxes are spent, and insufficient engagement with motorists on highway upgrades (and the tradeoffs between paying tolls and not getting improvements).   SANRAL, the South African National Roads Agency Ltd, is one of the best highways operators in the developing world.  The proposals for tolled improvements have enormous potential to secure a first class highway network for the country, but that in itself isn't enough when people don't trust the system as a whole.   As such, it may be time for South Africa to review not only its tolling policy, but its entire road taxation and charging policy.

Truck road user charging: Australia and New York debate

Two completely separate reports are showing how debates are proceeding in two different jurisdictions about transitioning taxation for heavy vehicles (in particular trucks) towards distance based charges.

Australia

I've reported before about the Australian Federal Government's review of taxation, with the release of a discussion paper floating a shift from fuel tax and ownership taxes to distance based charging.  There is some support for the concept among motoring groups.  However, the reaction in the rural and road freight sectors has been negative.  The claim is that it would be complex, expensive to administer and penalise rural areas (because of charging by distance).

fuel excise and registration fees do not provide incentives for trucking operators to choose routes and vehicle configurations that minimise road damage and flow-on costs... The current charging system also results in significant cross subsidies between different types of heavy vehicle operators,” is what the discussion paper says.  It is right of course.

However, the battle lines are forming.

Fully Loaded reports on how the Australian Trucking Association has been invited to the tax forum, and expressed its preference to retain the status quo of fuel tax with two tiers of annual vehicle licensing fees.

The concerns are two fold.  One is obvious.  Australia as a large country will naturally mean distance based charging could mean expensive trips.  However, that is a corollary of having long thin road networks.  A decision would need to be made as to how much of those costs should be born by the road users and how much by the property owners for whom some of these roads are access routes.  However, for long thin intercity/interstate routes, it is difficult to argue against those roads being paid for by the users of those roads.   A full network costs and charges study (similar to work done in the UK, EU and New Zealand) might help inform such a debate.  Indeed, the entire debate around road pricing could be better informed if the under-charging (and over-charging) across road (and rail) users were to be more transparent.

The other concern appears to be that a weight/distance based system might cost truck operators a lot, and involve “red tape”. There is, of course, no need for that. Neither the Toll Collect system in Germany, nor ERoads in New Zealand, nor the non-GPS systems in Austria or the Czech Republic (links on this blog to the right) impose high costs on users. It is a function of design, governance and being oriented toward it not being a tax, but a service.

The public policy reasons for heavy vehicle charging are clear. It can incentivise lower maintenance costs by encouraging trucks to use routes and wheel/tyre configurations that reduce road damage. It can also more fairly allocate costs among operators. However, there are other benefits. It can more easily allow bigger, heavier trucks to operate on roads that can handle it. It might put rail and road freight transport on a more even footing, particularly for the heaviest longest distance hauls where rail is most competitive.  However, a cost and charges study is needed to really understand the impact.

Yet what needs to be sold is a deal to the truck operators.   The savings in annual vehicle licensing fees, which could be a single flat rate across all trucks based on recovering administrative costs, would be the pay back, along with refunds of fuel tax (assuming Australia doesn't follow New Zealand which abolished diesel tax), so that it is largely revenue neutral.

A system where trucks will not need to pay when offroad, with simple payments and low compliance costs. Greater mass and dimensions should be on offer where viable, and potentially off peak discounts (which may mean peak charges in CBDs).  Allowing heavier vehicles on some roads automatically would also be advantageous for some. There will need to be trade offs between complexity and operating costs, but policy makers need to move beyond a vague concept that can be shot down, to presenting options. That means a dialogue that addresses concerns. Indeed, heavy vehicle charging in itself wont realise many of the benefits of road pricing, but it can improve productivity and efficiency of the freight sector, as well as reducing road maintenance costs.

New Zealand recently reviewed its 33 year old weight/distance charge that applies to all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, and concluded (after some submissions to replace it with diesel tax) that it was better to keep it and enhance it.

For Australia to move toward such a concept (and preferably a better one), it has to think of pricing not as a way of getting new revenue, but to better collect what it collects now. It needs to consider how the technology can enhance business for freight operators, and engage with them. Most of all, it needs to sell to the public, business and operators as to why this is a good idea for the country (and I believe it is). The effort involved in that should not be underestimated.  It means making the case on pricing (with the evidence) and proving how it can be done, with low administrative costs, and what will be in it for truck operators.

New York

The State of New York is one of the four states in the US that still has a weight/distance tax for trucks (Oregon, Kentucky and New Mexico are the others).   Stateline reports on a study undertaken by Richard Mudge of Delcan Corporation on how to reform the system, and comes up with some interesting points.  I don't have access to the study, but here are some reported points:

- Many trucks in NY state have to pay six or seven taxes, making it possible to consider a system that means they pay just one, even better if it works across multiple states;
- Existing taxes on trucks in New York collect about $450 million p.a.;
- Truck operators preferred simple per mile fee compared to options that offered different rates according to type of road or time of day;
- Even though only 4 states in the US have a weight distance tax, all truckers must keep track of distance travelled, as information used to inform how federal fuel taxes are redistributed among states;
- Estimate that New York state loses more than $200 million a year because of underreporting of mileage (exacerbated by relatively high fees);
- While some are concerned that mileage tax costs more that fuel tax to administer, it is estimated at costing between 2- 5% of revenues, but vehicle registration costs 18% of revenues to administer, and tolls between 20 and 33%.

The details of New York’s situation are interesting, and it is a more interesting point about how much is lost due to underreporting of distance by trucks across the US. I don’t believe that distance based charging can cost 2% of revenues at the moment, 5% is achievable (but not yet achieved). Fuel tax certainly should cost less than 1% to administer, and tolls can cost as low as 10%. However, for me the study appears useful as a way of gauging how the trucking industry can be engaged in the debate about how to go about introducing a more sophisticated distance charge for road use.

New York State already has a platform to build upon, the challenge is to make it a more compelling proposition than it currently is, by considering how it can be made to be, say interoperable with existing toll roads in New York and neighbouring states.  More importantly, it should be an opportunity to be more efficient in charging, and to help provide a solution that is scalable.

Conclusion

The challenges with charging trucks by distance are considerable, especially when you are talking about a transition from fuel tax, and when there are cross border issues.  Australia's challenges are around convincing the industry that such a transition to charging by distance wont mean they pay more.  New York's, I believe, are as much around dealing with traffic from other states, and trucks operating elsewhere.  In both cases, the story behind better pricing ought to be supported by a study into the economics of the existing costs of the road networks and what vehicles charge, to understand where under-charging and over-charging may lie.  For this should not just be about technology and making money, but better pricing.  Finally, for anyone having to pay, they must have confidence that the money collected will be well spent.  Any consideration of reviewing pricing needs to also ensure confidence in spending.

Illinois toll increase approved to fund major upgrade

The Illinois Toll Highway Authority has approved the increase in tolls of an average of 88% to help pay for a $12 billion expansion and upgrade programme as reported previously. It will be the first increase in 28 years for those paying with I-Pass (a 915MHz DSRC system). The Authority receive no federal or state funding. Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel reports:

Toll road officials said the improvements would ease traffic jams, cut air pollution and encourage economic development. They touted the building program as their "cleanest and greenest," with an emphasis on using recycled materials, minimizing waste and improving public transit access on I-90

At the Waukegan Plaza on I-94, the I-PASS rate will jump from 75 cents to $1.40 next year. The cash rate will increase from $1.50 to $1.90 in 2012 and $2.65 in 2015.

For both the Edens Spur Plaza on I-94 and the South Beloit Plaza on I-90, I-PASS rates will rise from 50 cents to 95 cents next year. Cash rates will increase from $1 to $1.25 in 2012 and $1.90 in 2015.

The Daily Herald reports that the average toll would become 6c per mile after the increase, comparing to 3c per mile on the Indiana Toll Road, 4.2c per mile on the Ohio Turnpike, 7.7c per mile on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and 9c per mile on the Massachusetts Turnpike.

Note how the privatised toll road is the cheapest!   As I said before, what the Illinois Toll Highway Authority is doing is effectively making a deal - you pay more tolls, you get better highways.   It seems so simple, but then with many many years of tolls not increasing, perhaps it is that which has enabled motorists in the state to trust the Authority to spend their tolls wisely.

Tolls to be "fact of life" in Florida

The Florida-Times Union reports that “State Transportation Secretary Ananth Prasad said gas tax financing of roads is not sustainable, and tolls will be the first choice for financing all new capacity and major bridge replacements in Florida.”

This follows an announcement that Florida state route 23 will become a toll road from Interstate 10 to Blanding Boulevard. It involves widening the existing road and installing grade separating intersections (map in the article).

Tolls are expected be 15 cents a mile, which means it will cost about $2.25 to travel the 15-mile road. The $291 million project will be financed by the Florida Turnpike Enterprise.

The controversy is that tolls were abolished some decades ago. Duval County voters chose to do away with all tolls in the late 1980s, agreeing to a half-cent sales tax instead.

“Alan Mosley, head of the Florida Department of Transportation in Northeast Florida, said the concern about tolls coming back is more about inconvenience than money.”

However, tolls will be collected by the Sunpass. Sunpass is a rather tired DSRC (tag and beacon) system which allows vehicles to operate through plazas electronically at 25 mph - a far cry from the sophisticated DSRC systems elsewhere that operate at full highway speeds.  At least manual tolls will not be available.

State officials said they expected about 20,000 motorists to use the road on an average day after it was tolled. That is roughly the number of people who use the road now.

Florida's approach seems to mirror views being expressed increasingly across the US.  Tolls are a means of plugging gaps in funding road improvements, and without them many improvements simply wont happen.  For now, it is a useful way of progressing some works, but in the long run they will not be enough in themselves.   Certainly even electronic tolling technology that operates at slow speeds isn't going to be good enough.

What it should do is buy time to think about a long term solution and that is to talk about distance based charging.

Toronto debates adding toll lane to existing highway

Toronto is well known to tolling professionals as being the site of the highly successful 407-ETR toll road. Leased to a private consortium, it was the first fully electronic free flow toll road in the world. You may think that Toronto may be fairly open to more tolling, even tolling new lanes.

According to Inside Toronto, the Deputy Mayor of Toronto City, Doug Holyday has been promoting widening the Don Valley Parkway and tolling for the additional lanes.

“Holyday argued that if the city was going to toll a road, the Don Valley Parkway made the most sense because one would only do so by building additional capacity - and that the private sector might be able to cover the cost of widening the road.”

However, the proposal was rejected by the council.

What a pity. It at least deserved some investigation into whether it would be financially viable. Building new toll lanes could theoretically mean the lanes might pay for themselves, but most importantly, it means those benefiting the most, pay for it. An economic argument can be made for the lanes to not have to be fully funded by the toll, as other users of the road benefit from some users paying to use the toll lanes instead of the existing lanes. In fact, the principle is little different from a brand new road.

If a city can’t even agree to new capacity being tolled, it is difficult to see how it would even consider congestion pricing.

News briefs: Ohio, San Diego, Stockholm, Philippines, South Africa, congestion charging helping car pooling

Ohio

Bloomberg Business Week has a good article reviewing the issues around the leasing of the Ohio Turnpike.  Some points include:

-  $600 million of any lease would be used to pay back turnpike bonds issued by the state;

-  Former Governor Ed Rendell (Democrat) said that "The bid for the 545-mile Pennsylvania Turnpike by Abertis and Citi Infrastructure Investors died because the Legislature didn’t want to lose patronage jobs at the Turnpike Commission...But could they get a good deal? I think probably yes"

- Ohio Turnpike collected $232.2 million of toll revenue in 2010;

- Fitch has a negative outlook on the debt, based in part on the need to replace the road’s original concrete base, “a project that could possibly result in significant capital or debt needs in future years that are beyond current expectations";

-  Ohio expects a lease term of about 40 years, compared with Indiana’s 75-year deal and Chicago’s 99-year agreement...It also would retain a percentage of the toll revenue over time, even if that reduces the upfront payment" said said Jerry Wray, director of the state transportation department.

- "it’s unlikely Ohio would get offers comparable to what was received by Indiana, Pennsylvania and Chicago’s $1.8 billion lease of its Skyway in 2005 because they were highly leveraged deals with an expectation of economic growth that didn’t materialize"

On balance, it still looks like a potentially good deal can be gained for Ohio, but key to all of this is price and ensuring the road is kept in a good condition throughout the life of the lease.

San Diego

Sign On San Diego has an editorial commending the "nationalisation" of the South Bay Expressway.  It says:

- "Jerome Stocks, chairman of the SANDAG board, says the agency may only have to come up with about $245 million of the purchase price because the remaining $100 million or so is owed to the federal government";

- "Purchase of the road would likely obviate the need to add four express lanes to Interstate 805 south of SR-54, scheduled for around 2030 and estimated to cost nearly $700 million, making more money available for other regional projects";

- "As a government agency, SANDAG would have no multimillion-dollar property tax bill to cover, it already has the employees to operate the toll road, and SANDAG would be looking only to maximize the movement of people and goods, while a private operator would be looking to maximize profit".

SANDAG surely has to factor in not receiving property tax revenue as well as not making the same money from the toll road.  The key public policy benefit must be in deferring other works, yet if they were tolled as well, would the case for the buy back still stack up?

Stockholm

Norwegian tolling equipment supplier QFree has won the contract to continue servicing and maintaining the Stockholm congestion charging infrastructure that it originally installed. The contract is only for 1 year started 1 January 2012 at a value of US$2.9 million.

Philippines

The Manila Standard reports that the Supreme Court of the Philippines has confirmed that toll operators must charge VAT of 12% on their tolls.  They have been resisting this on the basis that it is not akin to a "service", but of course because putting up the price will reduce demand (and revenue).

South Africa

Comments from the South African Transport Minister and the Energy Minister indicate a firm commitment by the government there to tolling. IOL News reports that Transport Minister Sibusiso Ndebele said "If there is an outcry and people say they won't pay tolls, then we can't put the freeway in...Freeways are not free." and Energy Minister Dipuo Peters said: “Those rejecting the tolls were the worst of people who spent their money on comforts and not on essential services such as electricity...People buy cellphones, they pay for airtime, but when it comes to water, electricity and transport, people complain about the user-pays principle, knowing quite well that we need resources to maintain and operate this infrastructure.” That was in response to dismay expressed by COSATU - the Congress of South African Trade Unions - which opposes the tolls as an imposition on car commuters who have "no other choice".

Car pooling

The New Zealand Herald reports comments by Ridesharing Institute spokesman Paul Minnett claiming that congestion charging could support growth in car pooling. Given the propensity of so many authorities to promote car sharing through HOV lanes, it is welcome to see someone note that road pricing is likely to be highly effective in promoting car pooling, without segregating special lanes for that traffic.

Rhode Island seeking to toll existing interstate - without Federal support

The State of Rhode Island wants to introduce a toll, on an existing interstate, contrary to the declared policy of the Obama Administration, which only supports tolls for additional capacity.

Why does it want to do this? Because it claims that without a toll, I-95 through the state will deteriorate to such a point that it will risk the robustness of the network (as there are bridges needing replacement).

The Huffington Post reports that despite the Federal reluctance, the state believes that it has found a loophole. "A 1998 pilot program created by Congress would let states put tolls on old roads, and Rhode Island hopes to become the first state to take advantage of that provision. So far, the federal government haven't ruled whether it is eligible."

The proposal is a toll of around $3 to generate $50 million a year to support reconstruction of the route, and the associated I-295.

Tollroadsnews has an excellent article summarising the proposed works.  It is not proposed to be a PPP, but to be operated by the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority.

WNTH reports the toll booths could be put between exits 1 and 2 on I-95.  One motorist said "I know lot of back roads around here I'd avoid it at any cost".

Clearly, if it proceeds it will risk considerable political opposition locally. According to the Huffington Post: "When Brown University polled the state's voting public in March of this year, 72.5 percent were opposed to the idea".  Yet if people are also opposed to increasing fuel taxes, then what choice is there?

It is easy to presume that the Federal Highway Administration may say no, for fairly obvious reasons.  Yet, if the condition of the road is how it is described and the Federal Government doesn't provide the funds necessary to pay for its renewal, then the more fundamental question needs to be asked.  If the Federal Government wont fund it, and wont allow the state to toll to pay for it, will it expect the state to pay for it by other means (e.g. fuel tax increases that people out of state, who rely on these highways, can easily avoid) or should the route deteriorate to the point of putting it in jeopardy?

The logic of tolling this route is because Rhode Island is the smallest state in the USA, and the length of the roads concerned are short (70km on the I-95), so efforts to raise taxes from Rhode Island residents will not be equitable, whether fuel, vehicle or other taxes.

My suspicion is the Federal Government will magically find the funds - but that is not a sustainable solution.  There is a chance to make this a prototype for a new approach to tolling that can provide a partial solution to the highway funding problem across the US - if only politicians can get out of their short term "how do I win votes the easiest way" approach.

Below is an interesting TV news item about the proposal:

Washington state toll referendum threatens funding for SR-520 bridge replacement

Seattle PI reports that Initiative 1125, a proposed referendum on severely restricting the use of tolls in the state of Washington, would interfere with the funding for a number of projects according to the State Office of Financial Management.

Some of the effects would be:

- To block use of toll revenue from Interstate 90 to help pay for rebuilding the neighbouring SR-520 bridge;

- To have toll rates set by legislation rather than by the State Transportation Commission;

- To eliminate any potential options for congestion pricing;

- To puts at risk $123 million in Federal funding, secured for the S.R. 520 project, because congestion pricing could not be considered;

- To risk blocking the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel because it too includes congestion pricing.

I reported earlier on Initiative 1125 and concluded that, on balance, it would be negative:

It is tempting to stop politicians using tolls as an easy tax to divert from motorists, but it also doesn’t make sense to be ridiculously prescriptive in ways that don’t reflect good economic principles. I can understand imposing a restriction on a hypothecated fund to spend money on roads, and for tolling to be related to the costs of the roads tolled, and be spent on the network of the entity tolling. However, to restrict time and purpose of toll revenue spending is unduly restrictive...it would be wrong for this initiative to pass, because it is better to sacrifice improvements in one area to avoid a significant deterioration in the law on tolling in another.

This simply strengthens my view on this. There are sound reasons for putting some constraints around the use of tolls for non-road purposes, this initiative does far more than that and risks damaging the value of tolling for the State of Washington.

Resistance in Ireland to more tolls on existing motorways

It’s fairly well known that Ireland has a severe fiscal problem. Its public debt and budget deficit have ballooned, primarily because the Irish government gave 100% backing to Irish banks, which subsequently collapsed (and were nationalised) following the bursting of the Irish property bubble. So as a result, the government has been looking for money.

Dublin's M50 bypasses the city to the west. Yellow marks the toll plaza

The National Roads Authority, already responsible for Ireland’s network of toll roads (most of which are under concession), is currently seeking out consultants to help it with tolling. One of the key issues is where and whether to introduce new tolls on existing roads. One idea that has been discussed is to institute more tolls on the M50 – Dublin’s “ring” road bypass to the west – which already has one toll plaza, which was recently converted to fully electronic free flow operation.

Unlike the Minister's recent comment on Dublin congestion pricing, his view is that it is "unfair" that motorists are only charged at one point on the M50. According to the Herald, he said:

You pay quite a high toll just to cross over the Liffey, the section between Blanchardstown and Lucan. The idea is to have multi-point tolling, a lower toll but spread out over a number of points on the M50...estimate is that it could bring in an extra €50m

In blue is the untolled Jack Lynch tunnel, part of Cork's bypass

He is advocating using the extra money to reinvest into roads and public transport.  He says the toll could be €0.60 (US$0.80) at various points rather than the current single toll of €2-3 (US$2.67-US$4).  The Irish Examiner reports that he is also advocating imposing tolls on the Jack Lynch Tunnel in Cork - part of the city's N25 ring road. 

The idea has resulted in considerable opposition being expressed in some quarters, as this will be Ireland’s first example in modern times of tolling a section of road that was not previously tolled.   The Herald reports the view of the Automobile Association which says "It is a basic mistake to put a toll on a bypass...In the case of the M50, a toll will automatically recongest suburbs like Sandyford, Dundrum, Rathfarnham and Blanchardstown. "

Apparently the M50 toll as it stands raises €80m per year, with a €20m cost to run the system according to the AA. It ran a poll asking motorists what they would do if there was a toll on the route they commute on, and 61% said they would find an alternative route (hardly scientific or useful as a poll though).

There is merit in replacing one toll point with several on the M50, particularly if it is to spread the toll over multiple points.   Low tolls at multiple points could result in low levels of diversion as well as picking up more vehicles,  but the traffic modelling will take some doing to ensure that realistic sensitivity tests are undertaken.  By no means should there be a rush into this as motorists have time and time again proven that every extra euro, dollar or pound they are charged is worth more to them to avoid tolls than it is in spending at a shop.

Another bonus of tolling the M50 more thoroughly will be to manage congestion, except that it is no longer that congested. 

It was, but a combination of three things has changed that dramatically:

- The recession. Demand on the road has dropped because of the economic downturn;

- Removal of manual tolls. Instituting fully electronic free flow tolling has eliminated the toll plaza queues that once existed;

- Widening. Much of the M50 has been widened to three lanes in both directions with additional lanes between some interchanges.

In other words the road is actually functioning well. More tolls are likely to have a small impact on demand, but do create the risk of diversion if not located in the right places. A sound economic argument might be made for sufficient tolls to be in place to cover the long run capital costs of the road, except motorists may rightly note that they pay fuel taxes as well, which should be taken into account. Another point is the claim of a 20% operating cost for the toll, which is comparatively high, which may result in some criticism (although NRA no doubt expects its yet to be appointed consultants to help improve that).

The use of the money from extra tolls will be critical.  Motorists tolerate the M50 toll being used to pay for the road itself and the recent widening and improvements.  Using more of that money to make further improvements on that road or adjacent roads is likely to be more acceptable than using it for public transport projects that do little to benefit the users of the M50.

For the Jack Lynch Tunnel in Cork, there is a risk of diversion through the city centre, but a deal with motorists on using the money for some road improvements doesn't seem out of the question.

The policy reasons to toll sections of road currently untolled, are understandable. The money is needed, but in exchange for paying more, motorists are right to want something in return.  Concepts of tolling existing roads need to be created and linked to a programme of future expenditure of road improvements that would otherwise not proceed.  Tolling has been widely accepted in Ireland to date, as it is helped enable the financing of a significant network of new intercity motorways.  New tolls should help finance smaller scale improvements to the road network, but also be clever enough to manage congestion where and when this makes sense.  However, there are limits.  

Conventional tolls can only be easily applied to motorways and crossings.  It will be possible, political will notwithstanding, to expand tolls on existing Irish highways, using electronic free flow technology, but Ireland's motorway network is not ubiquitous.   If the issue in Ireland is revenue, surely the time will have to come to consider more universal network charging, perhaps of heavy vehicles so that road maintenance costs can be recovered from the vehicles creating most of those marginal costs.  Such a road user charging system would vary revenue according to demand, but could also charge in a way that avoids diversion, avoids the risk of revenue erosion that fuel taxes create and can target charges towards specific types of roads and regions.

Ireland's issues are significant, but it should expand tolls in a way that can get support from motoring groups, by offering something in return - which will mean lower tolls, at more frequent locations, and for the majority of extra toll revenue to be put into roads.  Beyond that, Ireland should look more seriously at road user charging beyond the motorways.

NRDC opposes new toll roads but supports tolls

The LA Times reports on how the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) - a environmental lobby group - opposes a new toll road - the Foothill South toll road, in southern Orange and northern San Diego counties.

Proposed Foothills South toll road

The proposed road is an extension of State Route 241 and is described on its official website as follows:

Extending the 241 will ease traffic on Interstate 5 by creating an alternative route for the hundreds of thousands of motorists a day who travel between San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Without the toll road, travel from the San Diego/Orange County border to Mission Viejo will take one hour in 2025. With the toll road constructed, the same drive on Interstate 5 will take 25 minutes and only 16 minutes on the toll road. The 241 is also expected to take pressure off Interstate 15, currently used by many driving from eastern Orange County into San Diego County.

The NRDC opposes the road calling it "yesterday's approach to traffic management"...", for the project to pencil out financially, are expected to be so expensive that only wealthy drivers would choose to pay them"... "road for the rich".

Its key criticism, to be fair, is that it claims the route will be environmentally destructive. I can't comment on that claim, but the criticism that the toll road shouldn't be built because it will be for the "rich" is not unknown elsewhere. In short, it implies either the road wont be viable, because so few will use it (in which case it wont be built), or it will be viable, but only benefit the wealthy - which is not an environmental argument, but a political one. Yet it also advocates an untolled widening of the Interstate Route 5.  Not a road for the "rich", but a road improvement not paid for entirely by those who benefit from it.

Curiously, it argues that the toll road will "waste" money.  The project website claims it will be fully privately financed and be repaid through tolls.  Hardly an imposition on taxpayers.   It is fair to argue about where a road should go, but let's not pretend there are economic arguments against a viable toll road.

Elsewhere, the NRDC blog advocates road pricing saying:

One of the most effective long-term strategies to manage congestion and save fuel is to use pricing measures that accurately reflect the cost of travel, such as pay-as-you-drive insurance and congestion pricing....Many states in the program have begun more widespread use of the most well-known pricing tool, tolling - today only 2,900 of the 46,730 miles in the interstate highway system are tolled -- but few have attempted any sort of variable pricing, which would go a long way toward reducing fuel use and pollution...The DOT should continue to encourage states to implement pricing measures including, and moving beyond, tolling.

I recognise environmentalists tend to oppose building new roads, because they believe they generate more traffic.  They are starting to support road pricing, because they believe it can reduce traffic.  However, new roads that are tolled, are likely to be sustainable because the capacity provided can be managed optimally.  In a world where the environmental impacts of road vehicles are decreasing on average on a per vehicle km basis, it may be worthwhile for environmentalists to consider how roads can best be managed efficiently, and to advocate new capacity only being built when it can be paid for by the users. Arguments against new roads can always be made on the basis of their impact on the local environment, but including tolls should change the way such capacity is thought of.