CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
Maryland considers adding tolls on I-270, Beltway
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
Doug Simmons, deputy administrator with the State Highway Administration, said the state is evaluating how tolls could ease traffic flow on parts of Interstate 270 as it runs from I-370 North into Frederick County and also on the west side of the Capital Beltway.
Simmons said the state is considering high-occupancy toll lanes, high-occupancy vehicle lanes and mass transit options, but officials aren’t wedded to any one solution yet.
“We are recognized nationally as one of the most highly congested metro areas in the country ,and our concern is efficiency of the traffic flow,” Simmons said. “We’re seeing what the best alternative is to move people efficiently, whether it’s managed lanes and carpooling or through transit.”
A Montgomery County planning board study released last week said motorists can expect to spend 16.1 percent more of their time, roughly 50 hours, stuck in traffic in 2012 than they did in 2005.
That’s because at least 38,000 new homes and 127,000 new jobs are expected in the next four years. Two-thirds of the growth will be in the northern half of the Interstate 270 corridor, the report said.
Simmons said even if the state were able to find the funds to create any sort of toll project, it would likely still take 10 years to implement.
Montgomery Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson said recently that the county may need to use tolls to combat congestion on its roads, but local transportation leaders dismissed the idea, saying tolls are one of many options.
Councilwoman Nancy Floreen, who chairs the county council’s transportation committee, said she finds the idea of tolls on county roads “a little over the top.”
“I’m not sure we’re ready,” Floreen said. “I’m not ready to entertain that solution. I think we need to focus on mass transit and getting people to use that option.”
kmiller@dcexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
9:38 AM MST on Mon., May. 26, 2008 re: "Maryland considers adding tolls on I-270, Beltway"
Report as inappropriate
12:57 PM MST on Wed., Jun. 6, 2007
re: "Authority to double tolls to pay for rail"
Report as inappropriate
8:31 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 6, 2007
re: "Authority to double tolls to pay for rail"
Report as inappropriate
7:18 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 6, 2007
re: "Authority to double tolls to pay for rail"
Report as inappropriate
8:01 AM MST on Sat., Jun. 2, 2007
re: "D.C. may join tolling trend"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
The expression "high-occupancy toll lanes" is not clear and is probably an error. "High-Occupancy or Toll" Lanes, known as HOT Lanes, may be what is meant. But I hope this is a mistake, as Maryland was considering just "Express Toll lanes", with tolls being electronically collected and varied to ensure that speeds on the lanes remain within designated limits, with no exemptions from the charges to High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs. HOT Lanes are being planned by Virginia as additions to segments of the Capital Beltway. Exemptions of HOVs from tolls makes no sense, as the tolls themselves encourage car sharing. The exemptions weaken the financial base of the investments and are troublesome to enforce. Hotels in Maryland do not (yet) exempt from charges those who share rooms.
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The whole public transit discussion needs re-framing. Transit riders are actually subsidizing everyone else by mitigating the carbon dioxide emissions that are currently free. free public transit dot org
210 agree | 216 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Peter said:
Me personally, I'd like to see them run this from Dulles down to National but that's a non-starter. I think they'd get more bang for their buck if they just ran it straight down the middle of the toll road instead of all over the place.
194 agree | 196 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Daniel Graifer said:
It is unfortunate that the Examiner chose to quote only an opponent of the metrorail extension in this article. Cross subsidizing public transit out of highway toll revenue is well established in the economics literature. People who drive have to recognize that no conceivable expansion of the Dulles toll road will be able to handle the traffic loads that will be produced the the anticipated population growth in Loudoun County. A high capacity alternative from the Dulles Corridor to Tysons Corner and on to DC is the only way to prevent thay highway from turning into a parking lot. Charging higher peak tolls to drivers who choose to drive forces them to pay for the delay that their choice imposes on other drivers. Using toll revenues to subsidize public transit is those drivers paying others to get out of their way.
189 agree | 208 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Chris L said:
This article is misleading. The "toll" that London implemented and that New York City is considering is not a toll at all, but a congenstion charge. Instead of toll booths, a sophisticated system of computers and cameras record license plates of all cars driving through downtown. You pay your ddaily charge by mail, phone, internet, or auto-debit. If you don't pay, you get fined. The techology really works. If you're driving that day, you WILL be spotted. Toll booths would never work here. Maybe for the VA crossings yes, but what about the hundreds of streets that cross the MD/DC border? If you tried to put tolls on the main roads, you'd just shift traffic to the side streets. Horrible idea that favors MD commuters over VA ones, and will create more traffic than it removes. Congestion charge: YES! Toll booths, NO!
200 agree | 192 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree