Montgomery Council wants others to pay for ICC
The Washington Examiner reports that the Montgomery County Council is asking the Maryland Transportation Authority to back off its plans for charging tolls on the Intercounty Connector in line with what the authority's consultant figures the market will bear.
The Council is also asking the authority to phase in a $3 fee for those who use the tollroad without an E-ZPass -- a charge intended to cover the extra cost of billing vehicles on the basis of license plate photos for use of the tollbooth-free road. On top of that, it wants a subsisized commuter rate that is at odds with the plan to use toll rates to eliminate congestion on the ICC.
These ideas certainly sound good to Montgomery County elected officials because they are nothing more than an added subsidy for use of a road that is already heavily subsidized. The problem, from a Baltimore point of view, is that an additional subsidy for the ICC means it will generate less revenue than expected. That means a greater share of the debt service on its bonds will have to be paid out of some other revenue stream.
There aren't a whole lot of other places for the authority to look for that revenue. Maryland now has seven toll facilities. None is anywhere close to Montgomery County. Except for one, the U.S. 301 bridge over the Potomac River, they are all located entirely or partly in the Baltimore region. (The Bay Bridge, the two Susquehanna River Bridges, the Francis Scott Key Bridge, shown above, and the two Baltimore Harbor tunnels.)
So if the authority gives ICC users a break, it's going to have to do so by socking users of those other facilities just a little harder when the next toll increase comes up in 2011-2012. There's really no way around it: The bond rating agencies are expecting a revenue increase in a certain range. If the authority wimps out about imposing sufficient toll increases to generate that revenue, Maryland risks a credit downgrade. That would cost us all in future borrowing.
I can understand the Montgomery Council seeking a break for its constituents, who will likely be the most frequent users of the ICC. What I can't understand is why we aren't hearing an outcry from elected officials from the Baltimore region, the Eastern Shore and Southern Maryland warning the authority against shifting ICC costs to the people they represent.
Users of Baltimore-area toll facilities are already paying a premium on their tolls to help build the ICC. Don't hit us with more of the bill because the very people who begged the state to build the ICC are now shocked at the price tag.
Sun photo
Categories: Maryland toll facilities
Comments
This article is right on. Those who wanted the ICC now don't want to pay for it. Baltimore area commuters have been paying for the ICC since 2003 when Ehrlich required the Authority to double tolls at the Harbor Tunnel, Ft. McHenry Tunnel, and Key Bridge. The toll increases at that time would have been absolutely unnecessary had it not been for the multi-billion $ ICC. O'Malley went ahead with the project. The financial stress this has placed on the Authority and the Baltimore area commuters should be no surprise to anyone. If the ICC users do not now pay their fair share, then the inequities in the toll system will only further increase. If the ICC consumes an inordinate amount of toll system revenues, there will be fewer resources available to improve and maintain the existing Baltimore area toll facilities as well as other Authority toll facilities.
Posted by: Steve | November 19, 2009 8:03 AM
Agreed 100 percent, Michael. Well-done.
Posted by: Chris | November 19, 2009 10:31 AM
Somehow amidst all the political wrangling that went into getting this White Elephant constructed, I don't member any discussion of whether it was going to be a toll road, let alone one charging such an exorbitant rate! No one people have sticker shock.
Yet despite this, the richest county in Maryland, one of the presumed recipients of the benefits from this boondoggle, can't be bothered to pay its fair share to foot the bill for the ICC.
For whom was this highway constructed: Eastern Shore residents?
Posted by: Toll Road to Nowhere | November 23, 2009 12:16 PM
For whom does the Bell Toll? It doesn't Toll for me!
Posted by: Finder | November 23, 2009 4:57 PM
When the Fort McHenry tunnel was funded, the tolls were to be removed when the bonds were paid for. The liars in Annapolis reneged on that promise before the bonds matured. The ICC is another example of how incompetent they are.
Posted by: GHCinNottingham | November 23, 2009 5:16 PM
Where was the outrage when Baltimore/Eastern Shore representatives helped our local officials (bought and paid for by development interests) forced this road down our throats?
It's a little late, but I suppose it's nice to have you here at the party of fiscal responsibility. $4.2 billion for 18 miles of road. What were they thinking? They could have shut it down years ago.
I hope when tax funds get sucked out of Thornton funding of schools, maybe enough voters will realize that paving the state isn't a long term solution for any vexing problem we have.
Posted by: williamjacobs | December 3, 2009 1:32 PM