<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 02/04/2012 11:38 AM, Bill London wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4CFD70212F7C40DF8DCFA8A8D6517C5E@DalePC"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: 'Calibri'; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-size: 12pt;">
<h1><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="font-size:
18pt;">Here’s another great editorial from the Tribune.
Thanks to Marty Trillhaase.</font></font></h1>
<h1><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="font-size:
18pt;">Why is the Idaho taxpayer paying for the
megaloads? BL</font></font></h1>
<h1><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="font-size:
18pt;">-----------------------------------------------
</font></font></h1>
<h1><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="font-size:
18pt;">Lewiston Tribune</font></font></h1>
<h1><font face="Times New Roman"><font style="font-size:
18pt;">The last thing megaloaders need is a subsidy </font></font></h1>
<p><strong><font face="Times New Roman">Marty Trillhaase |
Posted: Saturday, February 4, 2012 12:00 am </font></strong></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman">Last year, more than 70
megaloads traveled across north central Idaho highways -
often with an unofficial subsidy courtesy of the Idaho
taxpayer and motorist.</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
<div style="display: none;" class="tncms-restricted-notice">
<div style="background-image:
url("http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/lmtribune.com/content/tncms/live/components/core_external_jqueryui/resources/images/ui-bg_glass_95_fef1ec_1x400.png");
border: 1px solid rgb(205, 10, 10); background-color:
rgb(254, 241, 236); background-repeat: repeat-x;
background-position: 50% 50%;" class="restricted-text
ui-widget ui-widget-header ui-state-error"> </div>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">But from the time the
megaload plans appeared on the scene, it was obvious the
state wasn't charging enough.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">How much this is costing you
is elusive because ITD doesn't track it.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">From there, ITD would have
to decide what is a routine expense it would absorb and
when it should send megaloaders a bill.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
<div class="encrypted-content">
<p><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>