On September 24 the Federal Highway Administration issued policy guidance on various aspects of MAP-21, including a memorandum to its Division Administrators on the tolling provisions in MAP-21 and questions and answers on federal tolling laws.
The tolling guidance addresses (1) the “complete replacement” of the prior statutory language of 23 U.S.C. 129(a), (2) the application of the existing HOV/HOT lane provisions in 23 U.SC 166, and (3) the status of the four existing toll pilot programs. It is a must-read for anyone concerned with federal tolling law and policy.
Sections 129 and 166
The guidance recognizes the important expansion of tolling rights under Section 129 to newly constructed lanes added to existing toll-free Interstate highways, and to initial construction of highways, bridges, and tunnels on the Interstate System. These provisions mainstream the interstate construction and express lanes demonstration programs. Inexplicably, it does not mention another important expansion of tolling rights – for reconstruction of existing Interstate facilities, provided the number of toll-free, non-HOV lanes is preserved.
Sections 129 and 166 have overlapping provisions addressing conversion of HOV lanes to tolled lanes. New Section 129(a)(1)(H) authorizes conversions and is free of conditions or limitations on the tolling method and rates. Standing alone, it allows tolling of HOV vehicles in what were formerly HOV lanes. Existing Section 166(b)(4), on the other hand, allows non-HOV use of HOV lanes if the non-HOV vehicles – but not the HOV vehicles - are tolled under a demand management automatic tolling system. So there is an issue under MAP-21 whether Section 129(a)(1)(H) is limited by Section 166(b)(4) and its lack of authority to toll HOV vehicles.
The FHWA guidance on this issue is creative, to say the least:
"MAP-21 makes the conversion of HOV lanes to toll facilities eligible under Section 129. However, since Section 129 does not provide specific authority allowing vehicles not meeting the occupancy limitation to operate on HOV lanes, such authority can only come from Section 166, and its provisions will thus apply to all conversions of HOV lanes to toll operations."
FHWA apparently takes the view that tolling agencies must continue to allow HOVs to have toll-free use of converted HOV lanes at all times of day. It was not necessary for FHWA to reach this conclusion. It was equally possible for it to conclude that Section 166 provides the authority for non-HOVs to use HOV lanes and pay a toll, and that Section 129 authorizes tolling of the HOVs. In other words, it is reasonable to conclude that new Section 129(a)(1)(H) on its face allows a tolling agency to take an HOV lane out of circulation and make it a completely tolled facility. While we question whether FHWA's interpretation is correct, we at least now have some more clarity on the issue.
The guidance also acknowledges that tolling agreements are no longer required under Sections 129 and 166. Previously executed agreements will continue in effect. FHWA will take no further action for those agreements in process but not yet signed. In the same breath, however, FHWA is now recommending that tolling agencies use (the catchphrase is “may wish to enter into”) a form of “Memorandum of Understanding” regarding tolling of a project. The form MOU, included in the guidance, looks conspicuously similar to a Section 129 agreement and would create a binding contract. It remains to be seen whether FHWA division offices will leave use of the MOU to the discretion of tolling agencies or mandate their use despite clear Congressional intent to do away with tolling agreements.
MAP-21 left a lot of guesswork as to the status of the pilot programs. The guidance and answers to questions do a good job of clarifying where the programs stand.
The Express Lanes Demonstration Program expires this September 30. Agreements for five of the 15 slots have been executed and will remain in effect. The projects for which slots were allocated but no agreement signed will receive no further processing under this pilot program but will be addressed under Section 129.
The Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program, while technically continuing until 2015, is effectively defunct. Because new interstate system construction is now a statutory right under Section 129, FHWA will accept no further applications under this pilot program.
MAP-21 does not change the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program. This pilot program authorized only three slots, and all of them are currently reserved. Tolling agreements are required under this pilot program.
The most important continuing pilot program is the Value Pricing Pilot Program. It provides considerable flexibility in introducing congestion pricing mechanisms to existing interstates and highways. For instance, the VPPP could be used to authorize a regional managed lanes program, or a cordon pricing program. Of the 15 available slots, seven are permanently reserved under executed statewide tolling cooperative agreements; and the other eight are reserved to selected state agencies for studies or non-toll projects. The eight slots will become available again once the studies are done. The guidance indicates that FHWA will use the VPPP only for situations that are not authorized under the new Section 129. Tolling agreements are required under this pilot program.
In the short term, expect to see increasing use of the expanded tolling authority under MAP-21, as state DOTs and local transportation agencies struggle to find new revenue sources to meet critical needs. As Bob Poole notes, the number of managed lane projects is proliferating (Surface Transportation Newsletter #107).
In the long run, the combination of shrinking federal funding for transportation and continuation of federal restrictions on tolling is not sustainable. Unless another robust revenue source is identified, tolling across all lanes of Interstates will be critical to finance the major Interstate reconstruction and rehabilitation that looms. Federal law still prohibits such tolling. There may be an opportunity to further expand federal tolling rights as part of the negotiation in Congress and with the Administration of the “Grand Fiscal Bargain” after the November elections.
In my view, there is no sound policy reason for federal law restrictions on what facilities may be tolled, at least in urbanized areas where the predominant traffic is local and regional. Policy decisions on tolling are driven by state and local needs and local citizen input. Local transportation bodies and the elected officials that appoint them are accountable to the voters directly affected by tolling policy decisions. Where there is accountability, the decisions will reflect the balance of local interests and needs. Federal law and policy should accommodate, rather than inhibit, those decisions.