Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 71
71 · Examination of annual operational expenditures and sort- Metropolitan MPOs: The San Diego Association of Gov- ing between administrative, collection, and enforcement ernments (SANDAG), which manages the I-15 lanes activities. Multi-modal agencies: OCTA, which oversees SR-91 · The mandate of all toll agencies involves the maintenance of and the Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA) road infrastructure, the extension of toll road systems, and Private operations: Toronto 407 International Inc. and other capital improvements that expand system capacity. To the Dulles Greenway provide a more accurate representation of the costs that · Toll system type. This analysis includes are specific to toll administration, collection, and enforce- Single facility toll roads: SR-91, CTRMA (or US 183-A), ment, it was necessary to exclude the capital and operational E-470, and I-15 expenditures related to physical infrastructure. However, Multi-road toll agencies: NTTA, the OrlandoOrange toll collection and highway maintenance activities may share County Expressway Authority (OOCEA), Florida's Turn- cost centers. pike Enterprise (FTE), and ISTHA · Toll agencies that did not disaggregate annual expendi- Bridges: The Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commis- tures (e.g., states that merged highway maintenance costs sion (DRJTBC) and the Delaware River Port Authority with toll activities within a single line item) were excluded HOT lanes: I-15 HOT lanes from this analysis. · Toll-collection method. As toll systems are moving toward · Revenues generated from non-toll-related activities, such the implementation of all or partial ETC systems, the major- as food and fuel concessions along the road facility, were ity of toll systems under analysis have a hybrid toll-collection excluded from this analysis. system in place. However, two systems--CTRMA and · Enforcement activities may be conducted by a public agency Toronto 407--use an AETC system. that is separate from the toll agency. In some cases, enforce- · Geographic diversity. This analysis includes toll systems ment activities have not been listed as a cost item. As a result, from all parts of the United States where tolling is permitted. additional data were collected related to enforcement costs. To the extent possible, in the analysis of toll system costs, However, these data were not available for all toll agencies same states that were included in the analysis in the collec- included in this analysis. tion of fuel taxes were reviewed. There was an overlap in four states--California, Colorado, New Jersey, and Texas. In 4.3.2 Toll Agencies Analyzed and order to include a privately operated toll agency, Toronto Selection Criteria 407 was included in the analysis. The objective of this analysis was to review a diverse num- Figure 37 summarizes the toll-road agencies analyzed with ber of toll agencies in order to provide a comprehensive survey of toll agency costs. To accomplish this goal, the criteria for respect to facility age and governance structure. selecting the toll agencies for this analysis were Table 24 summarizes the toll facilities operated and man- aged by each toll-road agency as well as the operational cost · System age. This analysis includes factors that are incurred by each agency. Mature toll-road systems: The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA), the New York State Thruway Author- 4.3.3 Data Sources, Coverage, ity (NYSTA), and the Ohio Turnpike Commission (OTC) and Limitations Toll road systems that were first developed in the 1960s and have since undergone considerable expansion: The The analysis involved the review of financial data listed in the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) audited CAFRs for each agency from 2003 through 2007. Finan- Relatively new toll-road systems: The Central Texas cial data were collected for a minimum of 3 years. The advan- Regional Mobility Authority (CTRMA) tages associated with the use of audited CAFRs include (1) that · Governance structure. This study covers toll system costs the reports are publicly available and, therefore, easy to obtain from a variety of governance structures, including: and (2) that these reports have been audited according to Gov- State toll-road agencies: The Illinois State Toll Highway ernmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), Financial Authority (ISTHA), NJTA, and NYSTA Accounting Standards Board (FASB), or similar accounting Toll roads administered by state DOT: The Dulles Toll standards, permitting data comparability among agencies. Road in Northern Virginia (Virginia Department of The primary disadvantage of CAFRs is that for some agen- Transportation transferred operations to the Metropol- cies, operational data have not been disaggregated between itan Washington Airports Authority in 2008.) administrative, collection, and enforcement activities. For most Regional government agencies that oversee toll roads of the agencies analyzed, operational data were adequately dis- across multiple cities and counties: NTTA aggregated. However, in the analysis of a couple of agencies, it