Moving Toll Plaza Not Perfect, But Best Bet

State Rep. Dave Campbell, D-Nashua, says his bill to move the tollbooth in Bedford five miles away into Merrimack – in the vicinity of Exit 10 – is not the perfect solution, but it is the best one.

There is no perfect solution, he said during a hearing Thursday afternoon before his Public Works and Highways Committee in Concord, but that doesn't mean something can't be done to make the situation better.

The “situation” is the loss of revenue the state faces now that the Raymond J. Wieczorek Drive, also known as the airport access road, is open. The federally-funded, 1.7-mile road allows travelers to cut over to the airport, exiting the F.E. Everett Turnpike immediately before going through the $1-per-trip toll booth. In addition to the lost revenue from travelers who once drove through the tollbooth to get to the airport, it is losing revenue from everyday commuters who can now hop off the highway before the toll booth, finagle a quick maneuver on Route 3 and return to the highway just beyond the plaza in fewer than 5 minutes.

According to a traffic and revenue analysis from November 2010, the state is projecting a net loss of $5.8 million in revenue at the Bedford and Merrimack tolls. The soon-to-open Merrimack Premium Outlets are expected to recoup $1.4 million at the Exit 10 tolls, making the net projected loss about $4.4 million, according to the study.

Campbell says building an open road tolling plaza in the vicinity of Exit 10 in Merrimack could recoup another $1.4 million, dropping that net loss to around $3 million. The bill he submitted, co-sponsored by Rep. John Graham, R-Bedford, and Rep. Carl Seidel, R-Nashua, also calls for the removal of the ramp toll booths on Exits 11 and 12 in Merrimack – relief the town wanted for years.

“(This bill is) trying to help out Merrimack by freeing up some of those ramps and it will hopefully create some funding so that one day we can widen out Route 3, which is important to people in Merrimack and to people in that whole part of the state.” Campbell said. “So that's the reasons for the bill. They are well intentioned, I know there are people who think this is worse than any solution, but the way I look at it is, it's feasible from the state's standpoint in the sense that it meets a lot of our goals as stewards of the turnpike system and I think it's better off than what they've got right now.”

Merrimack officials point out, however, that this doesn't provide relief for their estimate of 75 percent of commuters who head south to Nashua or Boston for work. In fact, it doubles the burden for anyone who lives north of Exit 10 and currently pays 50 cents in an out of town. Only the smaller percentage of commuters going to points north would be spared the toll.

Graham and Campbell point out that Merrimack would be paying the same as everyone else, but it still doesn't sit well with Merrimack's delegation and town officials who don't need to, but do remind everyone they've been shouldering the burden of paying tolls multiple times a day for some 25 years in order to have access to the highway.

Merrimack's representatives countered Campbell's bill earlier in the day with two bills of their own, one that calls for the removal of the ramp plazas, period, and one that requests trip amnesty on top of the 30 percent EZ pass discount, to commuters.

HB 1257, to remove the tolls, would create a further revenue loss of $1.3 million, said Turnpike Administrator Chris Waszczuk. He did however say HB 1192 “has some merit” and could be a good idea. The bill, with an amendment, would deepen the discount already given to EZ Pass holder by allowing them to travel through the tolls for free after 16 round trips – or 32 trips – in a single month. The original bill called for the free ride after only 16 times through the tolls.

It's a matter of fairness to the town, Sens. Peter Bragdon and Ray White said in their testimonies on Thursday. Both argued there are other solutions that can be investigated, especially given there is no urgent need to put this bill through. The bill calls for movement when funds become available, which they are not at the moment.

“I'm going to suggest and advocate for and plead that fairness to Merrimack be at the top of the hierarchy of needs,” White said.

Bragdon, the Senate president, suggested that Nashua, near Exit 1, might be the better place to relocate the tolls when open road tolling funds become available.

Though there is no proposal on the table to do so, Rep. Dick Hinch, R-Merrimack, pointed to the same traffic study Campbell used to base the move to Merrimack, to show the state would recoup more than $4 million in revenue if the tolls were pushed closer to the Massachusetts border.

Campbell and Waszczuk argued that recommendation is the second best option, despite the increased revenue, because of difficulty of construction and the diversion of traffic it is expected to create on Daniel Webster Highway in south Nashua.

The traffic study suggests 10 proposals altogether, with open road tolling at Exits 10 or 1 as the leading two options, Waszczuk said, but neither is comes without warts.

“There is really no perfect solution; each one of the (10) alternatives is flawed,” Waszcuk said adding that the construction near Exit 1 would be far more complicated than the one at Exit 10, making this the best solution in his mind.

Asked if he would consider supporting bumping the ramps at Exit 10 to a $1, but cutting Merrimack residents a discount there, Campbell said he would support a commuter discount as proposed in HB 1192. He said approving a general commuter discount would help other drivers in the state on the Spaulding Turnpike or heading through the Hooksett tolls.

“I think that helps and in conjunction then maybe Merrimack could do it,” Campbell said. “Maybe we roll it all together into one grand bill and maybe then it could get some support. Because, right now I'm feeling that you look at this bill by itself and you've got people like the senate president signing against it, you know, you worry about its fate.”

The Public Works and Highways Committee will take all three bills into consideration over the next week and then vote whether to recommend them or not before moving them onto the floor of the House.