[Vision2020] paying for the megaloads

[Paul Rumelhart]

Idaho taxpayers are paying for the megaloads for the same reason they 
pay for anyone else to travel along their roads.  Because it's 
worthwhile to be able to connect to other places in the state and it's 
worthwhile to connect our roads to roads from other states.  Not only 
does it help Idaho residents get around the state and to travel afar, it 
also allows others to come here.  Some of them may spend money here, 
others may drive right on through.  The only other alternative I see is 
to put in private toll roads, where the owner of the road can allow 
whomever they want to drive on it to do so, assuming they pay the toll, 
and exclude those vehicles they don't want to allow through.  I don't 
want that, and I doubt anyone here does, either.

If the ITD needs to restructure their permits to handle larger loads, 
then they should do so in a way that remains fair (i.e. no singling out 
of particular companies or types of equipment that are being hauled).  
Regardless, there will always be some inequity.  Those who are pulling 
loads that are much larger than the minimum for that category will get 
more of a break, those that barely meet the weight criteria will pay 
more relatively.  Unless you charge a certain amount per ounce or 
something, I don't see how you can avoid that.

I understand that there are a lot of people out there that don't like 
the megaloads just on general principles.  Let's not go changing the 
rules for those reasons.  State roads should be ruled in a fair manner, 
and not at the whim of public sentiment.

Paul

On 02/04/2012 11:38 AM, Bill London wrote:
>
>
>   Here’s another great editorial from the Tribune.  Thanks to Marty
>   Trillhaase.
>
>
>   Why is the Idaho taxpayer paying for the megaloads?  BL
>
>
>   -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>   Lewiston Tribune
>
>
>   The last thing megaloaders need is a subsidy
>
> *Marty Trillhaase | Posted: Saturday, February 4, 2012 12:00 am *
>
> Last year, more than 70 megaloads traveled across north central Idaho 
> highways - often with an unofficial subsidy courtesy of the Idaho 
> taxpayer and motorist.
>
> Among them were 10 shipments along U.S. Highway 12, including four 
> from ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil's experimental module. At one time, 
> ExxonMobil spoke about running 200 of these rolling roadblocks up U.S. 
> 12 en route to the Alberta tar sands project.
>
> At the same time, ExxonMobil reconfigured megaloads parked at the Port 
> of Lewiston for interstate highway travel and moved 64 of them up U.S. 
> Highway 95.
>
> Each of them paid an over-legal permit fee to the Idaho Transportation 
> Department. ConocoPhillips was charged an average of $2,210 per trip. 
> ExxonMobil's transports paid, on average, $175. The companies also 
> reimbursed what Idaho spent clearing the highways of snow and for 
> extra law enforcement.
>
> But from the time the megaload plans appeared on the scene, it was 
> obvious the state wasn't charging enough.
>
> For starters, the fees Idaho charges for the routine task of 
> permitting 65,000 trucks annually that are heavier and bigger than 
> standard-sized rigs haven't been updated in five years. Those fees now 
> fall about $643,000 short of covering ITD's processing costs.
>
> That's the kind of thing that happens when a state's political 
> mentality confuses fees with taxes. Last year, Idaho lawmakers even 
> refused to increase court costs by $1.50 just to pay for more police 
> officer training.
>
> Now factor in the megaload funding gap. Idaho never envisioned the 
> scope of demands megaloads would place upon its transportation 
> department. These included the hours Idaho engineers devoted to 
> double-checking the structural sturdiness of bridges along the 
> megaloads' intended route. Or the time engineers spent analyzing how 
> the megaloaders planned to interact with other truckers, motorists and 
> emergency responders on the highways.
>
> Not to mention the hours ITD staffers burned up conducting public 
> hearings or responding to inquiries. Plus there are the legal fees ITD 
> incurred during two contested rule hearings. Just one involving the 
> ExxonMobil shipments cost more than $80,000.
>
> You'll get an argument about how much this all costs. The Tribune's 
> Elaine Williams went through the numbers last month and found $190,012 
> in megaload expenses, some of which was reimbursed by the transport 
> companies.
>
> How much this is costing you is elusive because ITD doesn't track it.
>
> Now pending before the Legislature is an ITD-sponsored rule that would 
> increase its over-sized truck permits from $18 to $70 each. That 
> addresses the $643,000 gap.
>
> The same measure also empowers ITD to seek reimbursement of the 
> extraordinary costs associated with megaloads. One provision would 
> require megaload transport companies or clients to hire their own 
> engineers to analyze bridge networks. ITD would then review the report.
>
> From there, ITD would have to decide what is a routine expense it 
> would absorb and when it should send megaloaders a bill.
>
> Perhaps this is fighting the last war. Only 14 shipments remain parked 
> at the Port of Lewiston. Other than a couple of inquiries from Harvest 
> Energy, ITD has no megaload applications in its pipeline.
>
> Still, given the scope of ExxonMobil's initial plan, you can't be sure 
> whether this is merely a temporary lull. What better time to calmly 
> assess how much engineering, analysis and safeguarding these shipments 
> really demand and making clear it will be the transporters, not the 
> public, who pay the freight? -M.T.
>
>
> =======================================================
>   List services made available by First Step Internet,
>   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                 http://www.fsr.net
>            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120204/6a5de811/attachment.html>