The state of Maryland has many toll financed transportation facilities, but to my knowledge none of them employ variable pricing.   In my opinion, none of the primary factors that would justify charging higher tolls during rush hour exist with respect to the Intercounty Connector.
 
Stated simply, I am highly inclined to oppose any scheme that would allow for higher tolls during morning and evening rush hour.  I say highly inclined because, as I have said, the issue really has not been debated openly and exhaustively in the state legislature.  The former Secretary of Transportation did provide two very brief statements on the matter, but nothing approaching the kind of comprehensive analysis that would be required for any other major shift in public policy.
 
 
Congestion pricing or time variable pricing is intended as a means to moderate and accommodate the surge of demand that takes place during morning and evening commutes.  The ICC is probably the most inappropriate road upon which to use this tool.
 
Proponents argue that this kind of pricing will promote flex time, telecommuting and transit usage.  But for many ICC patrons, these will not be realistic alternatives.  Flex time really is not available to most employees, and even companies that have it tend to look down upon its use.  Telecommuting is fine for professional workers, but what about blue collar and working class employees?  And, of course, there is no transit alternative to the ICC precisely because the ICC is a suburb to suburb connector.
 
Heightened rush hour pricing does exist in the Metro system, but that is justified by the need to purchase additional buses and subway cars to handle rush hour loads.  No similar argument can be made in this instance.
 
In fact, to the contrary, it would seem to me that all drivers of the ICC receive a nearly identical benefit, which would justify a uniform toll.
 
The only alternative drivers will have will be either to wake up at 5:00 AM or continue to use the back roads -- the very same roads we want drivers to leave to local traffic.
 
Now, perhaps there are compelling reasons to justify higher tolls for people driving to work.  But in my view they have not yet been made.
 
It is my hope that the department defer any decision to implement variable pricing until the legislture meets in January.  It is my hope that you move forward with a toll that is uniform as to time of day and reasonable as to cost.  If, later on you are able to make a convincing case for variable pricing, you would of course be at liberty to implement it.
 
But, as of today, that case has not been made in the instance of the ICC.

So Barve is shocked, shocked that the state is planning to adopt a congestion pricing scheme for the ICC? The obvious question is where has he been since 2003, when The Sun first reported on the Ehrlich administration's plan to build the ICC as a toll road and use variable pricing to control congestiion.

For years, it was the opponents of the ICC who used the argument that tolls would be too high as a reason not to build the road. Proponents, anong them Barve, generally ignored those arguments. Now it turns out the ICC foes were underestimating the toll levels the state would charge. Suddenly ICC proponents are discovering philosophical objections to congestion pricing they never knew  they had. (For the record, congestion pricing is by definition a  scheme that prices less affluent or more frugal drivers onto the back roads.)

Years ago, before the ICC financing plan was in place, would have been a great time to have had a debate on whether congestion pricing was a good idea. A case could have been made that it made more sense to let the highway carry all the traffic that could bear -- even if it got clogged up from time to time. But then Transportation Secretary Robert L. Flanagan made an articulate, well-reasoned  case for a congestion-free ICC, and hardly anyone raised a voice to dispute him. Sorry, but that ship has sailed.

If there's anything surprising about  the authority's proposed toll plan, it's that there aren't more pricing levels. I would have thought it made more sense to have a peak, an off-peak and a midday toll. Maybe somewhere down the road, that'll happen.

UPDATE: A reader wrote in to point out that Maryland Politics Watch reported that Barve was a signer of a letter in July supporting the construction of express toll lanes to widen Interstate 270. That seems at odds with the delegate's statement that he is "highly inclined to oppose any scheme that would allow for higher tolls during morning and evening rush hour." Express toll lanes are by definition priced to reflect peak-time demand. Otherwise, nobody would use them.

Unfortunately, the gentleman from Montgomery County is on vacation and out of touch via email, but I hope he will get in touch when he returns so we can schedule a Barve vs. Barve debate.