The 157 million is being used to improve Springfield and the I-66/495/50 sections which will benefit everyone and besides 157 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what is going to be spent on the truely embrassing Dulles metro project

I hate this "rich people" argument first of all 10 bucks a day is affordable for most people.  (Before you get all upset the cost from Vienna to DC is 10 bucks the cost on the silver line is going to be more than 10 bucks)  There is also the option of carpooling or using the bus.

Build the thing already more capacity is a good thing and maybe after this is built you will be able to get from Springfield to Tysons in 15 minutes instead of the insane 45+ that it currently takes.

Even though I dont mind HOT lanes, I think a Congestion Charge as they have in European cities, is the way to go. A congestion charge would cut down on traffic and raise revenue for Metro...keeping our metro fares down.

The money will be going to the private owners and not into Metro's coffers.

First of all, I am opposed to building lanes with taxpayer money, especially General Fund money, and then charging people to use them.  That's charging taxpayers twice.  If the state wants HOT lanes where the tolls will be kept by the private company that built them, then that company should pay the cost of them.  Or the state should float a bond for them, share in the revenue collected by the tolls, and repay the bond.  So, my first objection is that some people will be paying for the construction of a faster lane that they may not be able to afford to use.

Second, if putting in a toll road to fight congestion is the goal, I am not sure that is the most effective way to do it.  I am basing this on personal experience, riding back and forth on the Jersey Turnpike and Garden State, heading north to visit family.  But I have never been impressed by a smooth traffic flow at those roads.

I suspect that stopping to pay tolls increases congestion and leads to back ups during rush hour. I realize there are ways to aid the smoother flow of traffic, such as smart passes.  But a lot of people who use I-95 and Route 66 in this area are occasional commuters who won't get them.

When I lived in Jacksonville, Florida, they eliminated their tolls on the bridges leading from the suburbs into the city because the congestion and backups were also creating environmental problems.  Idling a car in a traffic jam, waiting to pay a toll, creates more exhaust fumes.  Environmentalists pushed for ending the tolls for that reason.

I can tell you, again just based on limited personal experience, that once they eliminated the tolls on the Jacksonville bridges, traffic did flow more smoothly even at rush hour.

So those are my two reasons for remaining dubious about this.  But if others can prove me wrong, I'll listen.

There aren't going to be any toll booths.  They plan on using smart pass type technology for regular users and non-existent technology to determine if there are three or more people in a vehicle.  There are no plans for toll booths (to avoid delays) entering the HOT lanes - it's all electronic with no on-the-spot toll collection.  Which is good if you have an electronic pass or three+ people, but you're out of luck if you have neither. 

back in May  after a meeting featuring both public and private company officials.  My feeling was also a mixed bag, with a bit of a lean toward being against the HOT lanes.

Leaving aside the details, my basic take is this: two more lanes will be added which will pull some traffic off of the existing four public lanes, but the amount of relief will be limited because the new lanes will only allow enough traffic to keep it moving.  Simply put, we're not adding 50% capacity to the existing roads by adding 50% more asphalt.  The big question is "will it be enough"? 

My pet peeve (admittedly minor but illustrates poor customer service) is that with all their technology they won't put a money back guarantee on a congestion free ride.  If you get stuck in the HOT lanes you'll still pay big bucks. 

A bigger peeve is that I think it'll discourage carpooling... to a degree.  Since it'll be free to HOV3 only, current HOV2 carpoolers will either have to find another rider or will gain no advantage.  HOV on I395 currently requires 3 people, but on I66 it's only 2 - which works very well inside the beltway.  I think we'd lose some of those HOV2 folks since it's more difficult to coordinate carpooling with 3 than with 2.

Bottomline: if I had to vote on the matter, given what I know I'd vote no.  Of course, I don't have a vote on the matter, but if I did I'd want much better conditions for us, the public, before agreeing to anything like this.  Just look at the discontent brewing around the Greenway for what can happen to these public/private road partnerships.

Also, thank you for clearing up my question, upstream of this comment, about toll booths.  If those are eliminated by the technology you described, it certainly gets rid of one of my objections to the HOT Lanes. 

But the other objection, that they shouldn't use taxpayers money to build them and then restrict them to only some people willing to pay for them on top of the taxes, remains.

And of course your points about no guarantee of a refund to those who pay on those days when the lanes aren't congestion free (due, perhaps, to an accident or car breakdown) and the fact that it will discourage carpooling are additonal reasons to remain skeptical about them.

Thanks Eric.

All the commissioners who sit on the Northern Virginia Regional Transportation Authority are either elected officials or appointed by them.  There is a public comment session that will be held on Sept 14th.  The public has until December 20th to pull all its might together and stop this.  Not to mention, this is an election year.

As you point out, there is no technology to detect HOV-3 cars.  That would not have a minor impact on carpooling/slugging, it would end the practice.  Is there a requirement in the contract that the private company maintain HOV lanes or its designation for federal highway dollars?  You'll never know, because you can't see the contract.  You can only see the proposal.  Will you ever know how much Transurban stands to gain from this 80 year deal?  Not likely, as the state protects that data from public disclosure.  Is the state getting fair value for selling off this asset?  We will probably not know until after the contract award and too late to do anything about it. 

I sincerely urge all of you to write your delegates, state senators, county boards, and the governor and tell them to stop this.  Sign this online petition.  Write letters to the editor; post comments on Dr, Gridlock's blog.  Read my diary if you want more info (yes, shameless self promotion, but I want this to tank like abuser fees).

80 years is a long time.

I am totally wrong on my dates in the first paragraph; I was pulling 2005 dates from VDOT's site, my mistake.  So, I can't really tell when they plan on negotiating a comprehensive agreement which would be the final step.  And I don't know whether they are planning on having a true public comment period open or whether those information sessions is all there is.

Special Exit Ramps for the rich into the middle of Tysons Corner are not.

I wonder what the stores and restaurants at Tysons' two malls think of the idea of making people pay a toll to shop/eat there. I avoid shopping there except during the holidays anyway but I think if people have to option of paying a toll to go to Tysons or not paying a toll to shop at Springfield, Fair Oaks or another mall, they are not likely to pick Tysons. Do we know what the proposed toll would be? Of course, shoppers could chose to still go to Tysons' via Rt. 123 or Rt 7 but that will just back up traffic on those roads.

If a private company (a foreign one no less) can make money buying what we've all paid for, why not let the profits from these lanes go back to the state and keep it in our control? 

This is a short-sighted infusion of cash from the sale of a public asset to avoid having to raise taxes.

In truth, I too live near a Metro and really could care less, but follow the money and see all the politicians (including area Dem.s) who have taken generous contributions from the company constructing the lanes.

I went to a Q & A and no one was allowed to asked questions in public.  All questions were directed to side rooms to be answered.  It was very creepy and secretive.

Shame on the politicians.

I just went back and read the Post story. Are they really suggesting a toll of $5-6 on average per usage? That's hardly comparable to the Chestefield tolls (Isn't that 75 cents?)

From well south of Springfield to the Pentagon it will run upwards of $30 per day - to start.  Remember when the Greenway past Dulles was affordable?  Now it's created the world's biggest gated community - only the rich can afford to commute from there on a daily basis.  In time, I'm sure the rates will exceed $50 a day with no government checks on what's charged.

we should be privatizing out public infrastructure.  Seems to me that it's kind of an abdication of the government's responsibility to "promote the general welfare."

Sell off our schools, police/fire departments, military, etc., and then govenment will never have to take any blame for any failures.

It's a bit different from just whether we should have HOT lanes.  We're getting into the question of what functions are inherently governmental and what are commercial.

To listen to conservatives, everything is actually inherently commercial and only market-based solutions to everything - roads, education, police and fire, security - are worthy of serious consideration.

But there are real problems, like accountability issues, that come with that outlook.

As I said, this is a larger debate and it's worth having.  We need to discuss it, have our elected officials, and our candidates talking about it.

Many of us over "here" believe that the private sector can perform most government functions in a more efficiient manner.  However I believe there is also an inherant flaw in this logic.

Private industry might give you an 80% solution but what about the other 20%.  Moving on to the next "talking point" :-p private citizens and charity should take care of the other 20% and not the government.  (This is a whole other debate)

Going back to the 80/20 solution.  I think it could work in some areas.  The public school system has a 75% graduation rate 80% would be better so outsource.

Healthcare on the other hand Medicare and Medicaid are 100% coverage systems so going to the private sector is a net loss on this

For transportation we are really testing the waters.  Who really knows if this will work but I think its worth trying out because the alternative is more tax and spend and nobody wins under that philosophy

The main point through all of this though is that issues are extremely complex and there is no one size fits all ideologly.  By trumpting whatever points our respective "sides" are making we are only cheating ourselves and dragging down the debate to the level of the consultants and poltical machinery of both sides providing cover to all politicians to avoid the real issues and providing real solutions. 

 

On financing, what can the private sector do better here?  From a cost of capital perspective, the state can secure lower cost financing than private entities. 

On constructing an asset, both public and private entities are most likely going to serve as general contractors procuring the real tasks of construction from sub-contractors?  In that role, who performs better?  If a private entity requires a 12% ROI, government could be 10% less efficient and still beat private industry from a cost perspective as there is no markup required.  Also, there is nothing that prevents the state from executing best practices in procurement and securing the lowest cost for construction work itself. 

In addition to those considerations, transportation like transmission systems of public utilities require a very high cost for entry into the market.  In addition, like transmission systems create monopolies, so too does transportation infrastructure.  It is inefficient to create multiple transmission networks just as it is inefficient to create multiple competing highways.  The nature of the good requires either government ownership or heavy regulation in the form of the State Corporation Commission (Public Service Commissions elsewhere).  If you would advocate handing over transportation facilities sans SCC regulation, why regulate Verizon, Washington Gas, Dominion (though the GA has already seen to lax regulation in this case), AEP, Columbia Gas, or any other privately operated utility. 

I am all in favor of competitive marketplaces, but there are some things that are not and cannot be truly competitive.  In those situations, the government is necessary to facilitate a fair market (an approximation of perfect competition).  I think infrastructure should be owned by the public and open to all to facilitate a free market.  Unregulated private industry controlling infrastructure creates the great potential for market distortions that hinder the operation of a free market.  Just look back to the Gilded Age to see great examples of the folly of that.

I wrote a diary on this subject.  Other states have not had a positive experience with privatization.  And Virginia at the moment does not have a very sound process for selling our transportation infrastructure.

To a lot of points people are making, the state government could just as easily finance the project itself with bonds.  The state could make it a toll facility and then you could securitize the toll revenues.  You could sell the bonds for much shorter terms than 80 years.  And generally private industry has a higher cost of capital than government.  Any excess monies the state made above operations, maintenance, and debt service could go towards other transportation projects including mass transit initiatives.

From the VPAP - a list of Fluor-Daniel (the company building the HOT Lanes) Va. political contributions:

Candidate/Committee Contributions
Albo, David B (R-H042)  $1,000 
Amundson, Kristen (D-H044)  $500 
Bulova, Sharon (D-M001)  $1,000 
Commonwealth Victory Fund (D-PAC)  $10,000 
Connolly, Gerald E (D-M002)  $5,000 
Cuccinelli, Ken (R-S037)  $1,000 
Devolites Davis, Jeannemarie (R-S034)  $1,000 
Dominion Leadership Trust PAC (R-TPAC)  $2,500 
Herring, Mark (D-S033)  $1,000 
Herrity, Pat (R-M009)  $500 
House Republican Campaign Committee (R-PAC)  $10,000 
Hugo, Timothy (R-H040)  $2,000 
Jones, Chris (R-H076)  $500 
Moran, Brian J (D-H046)  $1,000 
Norment, Thomas K Jr (R-S003)  $2,000 
O'Brien, James K (R-S039)  $1,000 
Va Senate Republican Leadership Trust (R-PAC)  $10,000 
Williams, Martin E (R-S001)  $2,000 

I don't want to re-post all of the thing I say elsewhere.  But this deal is absolutely wrong.  It stinks to the high heavens like that awful Dominion "re-regulation" bill.  Virginia is selling off its assets, for what?  A pittance!  The public loses control of transportation planning so that some people can get to Tysons faster or the bottleneck that is the 14th Street Bridge?  WTF!?!  Transurban will own these stretches of highway for 80 years and control all of the tolls that go along with it.  Will Virginia benefit from any excess revenue above O&M? No! 

How are you on the fence?  And what does living near a metro have anything to do with it?  If Virginia sells all of its assets off to private companies and user fees are all going to private investors, where pray tell will the precious money for your Metro come from?  Through unpopular taxes? 

Is there technology to detect HOV-3 vehicles?  No.  If it is all electronic tolls with no manned toll booths, how are they going to let HOV-3 in for free?  And reduce congestion, please let me know how HOT lanes do that?  Because as far as I know, there is still a bottleneck at D.C., Maryland, and I-66.  And HOT lanes aren't fixing that.

This deal is a heist stealing money from the public to benefit private investors.  It is wretchedly awful, there are no words in our lexicon to describe how awful this deal truly is.  Worse than the transportation bill!  And unlike the transportation bill, an 80 year contract cannot be undone!  And you know what, you'll never see the details of said contract because it is not public information.  Are there non-compete clauses that prevent the expansion of competing transportation facilities (including mass transit) without paying Transurban a hefty fee?  We won't know until it is too late.

Read this if nothing else.

Just so you know, the HOT lanes are only going to move down to the Quantico exit (148). Apparently there isn't enough traffic south of there to make it worth their while...I guess the gridlock at the HOV merge in Dumfries isn't enough for them. Now they want to disgorge the traffic at Quantico, where thousands of people get off at 4:30pm...Plus the BRAC (Base Realignment?) is going to add at least 3000 more jobs on base by 2011...no congestion there.  Mind you, that's good for me, it will keep the back up north of me when I get off work. I think they are working on the Environmental Impact Statement for the extension already.

I wish the State would add the collector road from exit 133 to 126 first...instead we will get a new interchange at exit 140, mostly because of the new hospital.