A truck-only toll would do little to relive congestion in the Wallace Tunnel and could be unconstitutional, according to a letter from the state’s trucking association.

The Alabama Trucking Association tabled the letter ahead of two key meetings that will determine whether a proposed $ 725 million truck bridge over the Mobile River should be included in transportation plans for Mobile and Baldwin counties.

“The creation of a heavy-duty toll bridge over an existing interstate highway is an unfounded concept that invites more questions than answers to the problem under discussion: how to reduce congestion on I-10 in the Wallace Tunnel, ”said Mark Colson, president & CEO of the Alabama Trucking Association, in a four-page letter that will be filed with the Mobile County and East Coast Metropolitan Planning Organizations (DFOs). “It also invites a significant challenge to the constitutionality of the proposal, which would jeopardize the $ 125 million in federal funding due to delays caused by the legal process.”

Mobile County DFO will meet at 10 a.m. on June 2 to decide whether the project should be added to the organization’s long-term transportation plan for 2045 and the short-term transportation improvement plan or TIP.

Inclusion in the TIP, which documents projects deemed to be a priority within four years, makes the I-10 project eligible for federal funding and would provide state transportation officials with advice on the preferred proposal to tackle congestion. via the Wallace tunnel. and I-10 Bayway.

The DFO East Coast Policy Board will meet on June 9 to consider a similar issue. This meeting takes place at 10 a.m. in the council chamber of Daphne Town Hall.

Wallace tunnel congestion

The trucking industry, which employs about 109,000 Alabama residents, has expressed concerns about the toll bridge since it opened in late March. The organization expresses doubts whether the new bridge will divert enough trucks from I-10. Depending on the industry, commercial trucks account for 7-10% of the traffic passing through the Wallace Tunnel.

During peak hours, traffic can exceed 100,000 vehicles per day while trucks represent less than 10,000 per day, Colson wrote in his letter to DFO. He said the proposal “places 100% of the cost burden on the commercial trucking industry, although trucking accounts for less than 10% of the traffic.”

According to 2017 figures for Wallace Tunnel traffic, the truck volume was around 8,500 per day. However, an ALDOT spokesperson said in March that those numbers had likely increased in recent years due to growth in neighboring state docks and increased shipping.

The association is also raising questions about why some commercial trucks are designated as toll bridge users, while others are not. The proposal calls for a $ 10 to $ 15 truck on large semi-trailers or trucks 46 feet in length or more.

Mr Colson said: “To date, no rationale has been provided to support this decision. There are dozens of additional categories of large commercial trucks and vehicles under 46 feet long that make up the thousands of daily vehicles that would continue to use the tunnel without paying a toll. “

Some of the examples Colson cites: single-axle tractors pulling bobtail trailers, dump trucks, mixer trucks, fire trucks, and garbage trucks.

“Why wouldn’t all commercial vehicles be forced to use the bridge, thus removing more vehicles from the tunnel and adding more tolls to pay off debt faster?” Colson said.

Constitutional questions

The trucking association also raises questions about the constitutionality of choosing large trucks as the only toll vehicles.

Colson said the proposal raises “serious constitutional questions” and cited a case in federal court in Rhode Island in which the industry seeks to overturn that state’s highway toll system.

A truck-only toll could violate the dormant trade clause, a legal doctrine that prohibits states from discriminating against interstate commerce. The Rhode Island lawsuit argues that their truck tolls discriminate against out-of-state businesses, in violation of the Constitution’s trade clause.

The situation in Rhode Island is different from that in Alabama, according to local officials. In Rhode Island, state officials assessed a dozen statewide tolls on roads used by both cars and large trucks.

A spokesperson for ALDOT said the agency has looked into the legal issues and is confident that there is “no obstacle to tolling large trucks that will benefit from using the truck-only bridge, including trucks out of state.

“The concept of building a new bridge for trucks will improve traffic flow and increase the safety of truckers and passenger vehicles so people and goods can move faster and more efficiently through the area,” Tony said. Harris, spokesperson for ALDOT. “This will save the trucking industry both time and money.”

Colson said a lawsuit by the trucking industry would delay implementation of the bridge, jeopardizing the $ 125 million federal funding that U.S. Senator Richard Shelby secured for the previous iteration of $ 2.1 billion. dollars from the I-10 project. The project, declared dead in 2019, applied a one-way toll of $ 6 on all vehicles and was strongly opposed by grassroots opposition and local lawmakers.

Colson said another long-term question also remains: how long would the toll be assessed and when would passenger vehicles be allowed to use the bridge and whether they would be seen as a toll?

Safety concerns

The truck toll proposal is phase 1 of a three-phase concept to address the I-10 project and was presented as an alternative to the Alabama Department of Transportation’s public-private partnership proposal to which the Mobile and Baldwin county officials objected because of concerns over a high toll rate assessed on local drivers.

The initial phase involves a redevelopment of I-10 Bayway between downtown Mobile and Daphne. Colson, in his letter, said he was concerned about the safety of adding an additional lane on both sections of the Bayway.

He is not alone. Baldwin County Commissioner Joe Davis, who is on the East Coast DFO and supports the phased processing of the project, said he was concerned that adding an additional lane on the Bayway could or a safety hazard.

“It scares me from a safety point of view,” Davis said.

This story was updated at 4:45 p.m. on May 26, 2021 to include a statement from ALDOT spokesperson Tony Harris.