Toll Roads and Other Alternatives

I remember when I was a kid we made an occasional Summer trip to the northeast by car. Later, I vividly recall driving to Washington, Philadelphia and other northeastern points of interest for both work and for pleasure. Which brings to mind a commonality in those trips: toll roads.

The Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike is a vivid part of those memories. It was a regular dance of death, where every so often all the cars and trucks would have to slow down and zig-zag in an attempt to find the shortest lines through the toll booths. Then you'd toss a quarter or two or maybe a dime into the basket and wait for the "ding" and green light to come on before flooring it to zig-zag back into the traffic flow and the race to the next one. It was NASCAR with eight million cars on the track and mandatory pit-stops.

I think it used to cost something like a dollar and ten cents when I was a kid (there were five toll booths) if you were coming up I-85 to get through Richmond on I-95 northbound using that toll road. By the time I was an adult it was more like $2.25. That toll road began operating in 1958 and paid for itself and its upkeep long before the toll booths were completely removed in 1992. Even with the danger, it would have been worth many times that amount just because there was no decent alternative route. That first time I made the trip through Richmond WITHOUT a toll was a real treat -- I noticed it also cut down on travel time by a measurable amount.

Other toll roads were different, you'd get on and take a ticket similar to going into a parking deck and then pay the related toll at the booth on the exit where you got off. Now there are even toll roads that electronically monitor bar codes on your windshield and send you a bill. Progress. At a small cost for convenience.

If I had to put a dollar amount on toll road use when I was riding or driving, I'd guess my folks and I spent less than 200 dollars over the past 50 years, so you could say my toll road experience is not all that great. However, that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. For the most part, they serve a useful purpose.

The vast majority of toll roads are built to make travel more convenient, while providing a way to justify funding the construction of expensive projects, since they pay for themselves over time. That was the exact reasoning behind the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike.

Now we're hearing about some possible toll road projects here in "The Good Roads State" of North Carolina. In the right instances, they're probably a good idea since new roads cost a huge amount of money. Since it's a new idea here, let's take a closer look.

Just like anything state government finds itself taking-on for the first time, like a lottery, for instance, you can bet there's going to be some kind of operating "Commission" or "Authority". Some group of people who have no real clue about how to do that which they've now been tasked to do, and who'll be hamstrung by their enabling legislation, but who'll learn a lot about it in short order and probably do a fairly decent job of executing over time. Using the lottery example, if this is North Carolina, then the head of Toll Roads will probably be someone who used to be opposed to it, and there'll be something in the legislation to interfere with the accomplishment of the commission's goal!

Ha, ha, you say. But check this out... There now is a North Carolina Turnpike Authority! It's headed by a childhood friend of Governor Mike Easley (insert favorite cronyism joke here). Looking for the "opposition factor" here? Well, it's there, just not quite as blatant as the lottery Commission boss who used to be anti-lottery.

The Turnpike Boss, David Joyner, has transportation in his blood -- his daddy was a Highway Commissioner in the 1950's. In his heyday, pappa was quoted as saying, "we'll never have toll roads in this state as long as I can help it." At 135-grand a year, junior can afford to ignore senior's thoughts on the subject.

According to the Raleigh News and Observer -- that notoriously centrist (not) clarion of the capitol city -- the Authority is looking at as many as nine (count 'em) possible toll roads in the state. The first one may be right here under the nose of the Authority: an extension of the Durham Freeway which would be tolled for its four and a half mile length.

If you're thinking that four and a half mile road is most likely not a major priority in the highway system, you'd be right. That's why it hasn't been built yet. But it would make travel more convenient to quite a few people working in the Research Triangle Park. Letting them foot the bill for a road they'll use almost exclusively is not a bad idea. In fact, it's a good example of where this sort of idea would have merit.

BUT, you left out the monkey wrench in the enabling legislation, didn't you, you say? No, and here it is: in writing legislation to allow for toll roads, North Carolina lawmakers said there have to be free alternatives for every project. So, won't that will play into the cost they'll be able to charge for using the toll roads? Certainly.

Then given the choice between free and pay-as-you-go, what makes one think toll roads will pay for themselves in a reasonable amount of time? Hmmm? Well, just this: the cost to use them has to be reasonable in the mind of the consumer in terms of the time or distance saved, or the free alternative will be the route of choice. That's one of the main things the Authority will have to determine, and it's why I think toll roads will not just spring-up all over the place in North Carolina's future.

It's pretty hard not to see how that RTP project would probably fly even if the toll was relatively high -- it would beat the alternative by providing faster ingress and egress (a little trans-talk, there), but other projects may not be so well accepted. Again, that's what the Authority's for, right? Figuring these things out (as long as political favors are kept to a minimum) and planning such projects wisely: such as balancing whether or not to pay for convenience and determining whether or not a project will be environmentally "friendly" (that's very important to lots of folks around this area). Let me help on that last point -- cutting down on traffic jams is probably more helpful to the environment from a pollution standpoint than wasting time trying to figure out ways of cutting down on the number of cars on the road.

By the way, in the name of saving the planet, there's another transportation Authority in North Carolina that's proving its worthlessness while expending lots of energy trying to push a dead horse: the Triangle Transit Authority with its "Train Ride to Nowhere". Face it, when the feds don't even want to fund your boondoggle, it's time to cut your losses and move on.

Another thought on saving the environment in transportation: how about doing a better job timing the lights on busy roads, huh??? Needless stop and go traffic may be great as a "traffic calming device" and for "encouraging public transit use", but it's wasting an awful lot of our $3.00 a gallon gasoline. I submit for your approval the Durham-Chapel Hill Boulevard (otherwise known as US 15-501): Stop. Go. Stop. Go. Stop. Go. Ad infinitum. Thank goodness there are alternatives on either side that most people either don't know about or are too lazy to use. If they weren't available, I'd NEVER go to Durham.

And how about the laziness of leaving all the traffic signals in full traffic mode 24/7, instead of putting many of them (on those intersections where it would be safe to do so) into a blinking mode in the off hours (say 10pm to 5am). I understand Raleigh does this, and I know from living there Wilmington has done it since 1979. Those things save gas and therefore cut down on emissions, not to mention ease people's bloodpressure. Nothing is so aggravating as sitting through a two to three minute light sequence when there is absolutely no one using the cross street during the cycle!

Enough for now. Happy Monday!