IBJNews

Controversial legislation could lead to truck-only toll lanes on I-70

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Truck-only toll lanes along Interstate 70 are among potential projects that could result from a controversial bill that would allow the governor to authorize toll roads without an OK from the Legislature.

“What about truck-only lanes? That’s a possibility,” said Sen. Thomas Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, sponsor of Senate Bill 473.

Wyss cited I-70 truck lanes only as an example of the type of project the bill could expedite, but it so happens that very concept is already being studied by Indiana and three other states.

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation provided a $5 million grant to Indiana, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio to study adding truck lanes to the 800 miles of I-70 crossing the four states.

Trucks would zoom down dedicated lanes that could be built alongside or in between existing I-70 lanes, such as in the median. The concept would reduce congestion and could improve safety because cars are usually on the losing end when colliding with trucks. Some portions of I-70 are so clogged with semis that one could practically jump from trailer to trailer.

Logistics firms might buy into the concept if additional trailers could be hitched to a tractor—improving productivity. Such a system could also include dedicated truck connections from the interstate to airports and other logistics hot spots.

The downside is the cost: potentially $14.5 billion for public highway agencies to build tolled truck lanes through four states.

“Tolls are one financing option,” says a website the states created for the project. Using tolls under a public-private agreement could reduce the public investment to $6.9 billion, according to the I-70 truck lane initiative being led by the Indiana Department of Transportation.

Asked if Gov. Mitch Daniels thinks the bill could be useful for the I-70 truck lane concept, his press secretary, Jane Jankowski, replied: ”There are no specific projects in mind.”

“The impetus for SB 473 is to put in place the ability to move forward more quickly if there is an idea for a public infrastructure project that comes forward,” she added.

Roads are Daniels’ legacy

But to suggest Daniels has no projects in mind is hard to believe, said opponents of SB 473—noting the governor has been fond of big-dollar highway projects.

Daniels pulled off what many for decades deemed improbable—starting construction of Interstate 69 in southern Indiana. It is one of 104 new roadway projects being built with more than $2.6 billion Daniels fetched from a long-term lease of the Indiana Toll Road.

In 2006, Daniels proposed the “Indiana Commerce Connector,” the beginnings of an outer loop parallel to I-465 to be built east and south of the city. The idea was that revenue generated from tolls on the connector could help fund construction of I-69 between Indianapolis and Martinsville, a stretch estimated to cost at least $1.3 billion.

But property owners in the path of the Commerce Connector project howled. In 2007, Daniels was forced to withdraw the proposal, with Democrats in the Indiana General Assembly vowing they’d kill it if Daniels didn’t.

Without public outcry and the Legislature in the way, “I believe he’d have bulldozed ahead” with the commerce connector, said Aaron Smith, founder of Watchdog Indiana, a Lebanon-based not-for-profit that focuses on tax issues.

Smith is dubious that the bill’s supporters claim they have no specific project in mind. He said he had attended legislative hearings on the bill and never once heard the potential for I-70 tolled truck lanes, he said.

“This thing has been designed to be under the radar,” he said of the bill. “It is not right for a single individual—the governor—to have complete power over toll road decisions. The impact of toll roads on working families is so significant that all 150 of our elected General Assembly public servants should continue to decide the fate of toll road projects.”

Less scrutiny of economics

Wyss’ bill doesn’t cut the Legislature entirely from the process. A series of public hearings would still be required for projects involving tolls, along with a legislative review. Ultimately, though, the governor has the final decision, under the bill.

Tolling involves a number of complex economic considerations. There’s a relationship, for example, between tolls and traffic flow on existing, non-tolled roads that run parallel to roads that are tolled.

I-69 mapSix years ago, INDOT ran various scenarios for tolling I-69, downstate. A non-tolled version of I-69 would reduce traffic volumes on U.S. 41, which runs parallel, by an estimated 20 percent to 40 percent, INDOT said. If I-69 were tolled, the traffic reduction on U.S. 41 would fall 1 percent to 10 percent.

“The concern for me is that there’s not even a requirement that the need for a road is demonstrated or for tolling [benefits] to be demonstrated,” said State Rep. Terri Austin, D-Anderson.

SB 473 would continue to require the Legislature’s approval for tolling of I-69 between Indianapolis and Martinsville. So might the current or a future governor contemplate toll roads on the sections farther south to pay for construction of the northern segment, which is currently not funded?

Wyss said no, noting that the southernmost section is already funded.

“We are using traditional means to build I-69—no tolls. This legislation does not change that,” Jankowski said.

“INDOT has no plans to toll I-69,” said Will Wingfield, spokesman for the Indiana Department of Transportation.

Wyss contends all the bill does is allow for faster decision-making for new or improved roads. He estimated there’s $180 billion floating around that private investors would like to invest in roads through public partnerships. But many investors don’t want to wait years for a Legislature to vet a proposal, Wyss said. Approval for the Illiana Expressway, in northwestern Indiana, took about three years to get through the Legislature, he added.

Had the state started work on the Indiana Commerce Connector years ago, it might not have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars making improvements to I-69, northeast of Indianapolis, Wyss said.

Though neither Wyss nor the Daniels administration suggested the Commerce Connector idea is being revived, such legislation could prove worrisome for opponents to that project.

Indiana currently is among nine states with public-private partnership statutes that require some form of legislative approval for some or all such projects.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Rails not Toll Roads
    Gov't should be looking at facilites and incentives to encourage more rail traffic. Trains are far more efficient and safe.
  • truckonlylanestolls
    trucks pay enough money now they cant afford to pay more every body taxs us to death now
  • Pay as you go
    I am all for the truckers paying 100% of any costs for additional truck capacity.

    User fees are the way to go. Those who benefit pay the cost.

    I do not believe the US taxpayers should aid in the building of a truck only system.
    • Bad Idea
      The governor shouldn't be allowed to authorize ANYTHING without an OK from the Legislature...toll roads included. (Ever heard of "too much power in the hands of one person"?)
    • Think about the future
      Roads are very expensive, tolls or not! Roads are much more than a 1 time investment. They are expensive to maintain for as long as they exist.

      The thought of a second beltway around indy makes me sick. We need to be encouraging people to live in the city center, not encouraging urban sprawl. If you want to live in the burbs thats fine, but the government should not be incentivizing anyone to move away from the city center.

      Density creates efficiencies of city services. Economies of scale increase on city sewer, trash collection, schools, and roads when you have a dense enough population. The more spread out we get the more expensive and inefficient the system becomes.

      We should be creating incentives to create density in the city so that we have the tax base downtown to create the amenities that people want in a urban community.

      The national trend is a movement back to the city, lets ride that trend with smart policy, not more expensive roads.
    • Indy
      How would this impact the neighborhoods of Indianapolis? Would I-70 be a double decker highway or would they add lanes on the side. Another possibility of course is to remove lanes.
    • sceptic
      I thought Daniels and his followers were all about Tea Party ideology. In other words, get the government smaller and out of the way. So now I am confused. They want to build roads for trucking industry. Why? Railway is already there and more efficient in transporting goods (especially over long distances). Private capital (e.g W. Buffet) is already recongnizing that by investing money in railroad companies.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. Now if he'd just stay there...

    2. Daniel - what about the many US citizens who do NOT follow what the Bible teaches? The Hindus, Jews, Muslims and others who are all American citizens entitled to all rights as Americans?? This issue has NOTHING to do with "What the Bible says..." Keep all Churches separate from State! Pence's ongoing idiocy continues to make Indiana look like a backwards, homophobic state in the eyes of our nation. Can't we move on to bigger issues - like educating our kids?

    3. 1. IBJ should link to the referenced report. We are in the age of electronic media...not sharing information is lazy. Here is a link http://www.in.gov/gov/files/Blue_Ribbon_Panel_Report_July_9_2014.pdf 2. The article should provide more clarity about the make-up of this panel. The commenters are making this item out to be partisan, it does not appear the panel is partisan. Here is a list of the panel which appears to be balanced with different SME to add different perspectives http://www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventList.aspx?view=EventDetails&eventidn=138116?formation_id=189603 3. It suggests a by-pass, I do not see where this report suggests another "loop". 4. Henry, based on your kneejerk reaction, we would be better off if you moved to another state unless your post was meant as sarcasm in which case I say Well Done. 5. The article and report actually indicates need to improve rail and port infrastructure in direct contradiction to Shayla commentary. Specifically, recommendation is to consider passenger rail projects... 6. People have a voice with their elected officials. These are suggestions and do not represent "crony capitalism", etc. The report needs to be analyzed and the legislature can decide on priorities and spending. Don't like it, then vote in a new legislature but quit artificially creating issues where there are none! People need to sift through the politics and provide constructive criticism to the process rather than making uninformed comments in a public forum based on misinformation. IBJ should work harder to correct the record in these forums when blatant errors or misrepresentations are made.

    4. Joe ... Marriage is defined in the Bible ... it is mentioned in the Bible often. Marriage is not mentioned once in the US or Indiana Constitution ...

    5. Daniel - Educate me please: what does the Bible have to do with laws? If the government wasn't in the business of marriage to begin with, then it wouldn't have to "define" marriage at all. Marriage could be left as a personal, religious, or otherwise unregulated action, with no ties to taxes, legal status, etc. Then people could marry whomever they want, and all this silliness would go away. Remember to vote Libertarian in November.

    ADVERTISEMENT