For whom the road tolls
Notwithstanding Seattle process and consensus, a lot of serious policy discussion takes place behind closed doors. Road tolls has been such a topic: unpopular with the public but very popular with wonks and social engineers. The time has come to talk about them openly.
Danny Westneat's column in The Seattle Times about Ron Sims reminds me of the King County executive's value in the political ecosystem: He can always be relied on to drag the skankiest skeleton from the policy closet and force a new public discussion: the income tax, fobbing off King County International Airport on someone else, and, now, tolling major roadways in the Seattle area.
For a politician willing to seize on unpopular ideas, Sims is remarkably resilient – a kamikaze who survives each crash. He's not working his way up the political ladder these days, but neither has he been tossed out on his ear. And whether you agree with him or not, he ought to be thanked. What he does takes guts, because it burns political capital. But often it sparks needed public policy debate.
Despite Seattle's idealization of process and consensus, a lot of the serious policy discussion takes place behind closed doors. The public is left out of the loop for lots of reasons. One is because policy-makers are often afraid of how we the people will respond to ideas they recognize as very inconvenient truths. Road tolls are one of those things: unpopular with the public, but very popular with the wonks and social engineers.
Sims and others are preparing the way for what is mainstream thinking in think-tank circles.
One challenge is how to talk about tolls and user fees for roads. They're are often put under the heading of "congestion pricing," or the new phrase which puts a more positive spin on it, "value pricing." Wow, who doesn't like a good value? Maybe next they'll simply call it "free candy."
The greens such as the Sightline folks like free candy – uh, congestion pricing because it gets cars off the road. The people who can't afford to pay to use the roads at peak hours find other means to get to work. This is good for Sims because he's betting the farm on stuff like bus rapid transit (BRT) and voter-approved improvements to Metro Transit service in King County. To make that work, he needs fewer cars getting in the way and more bus riders. Make driving more expensive by tolling the roads, and voila.
Conservatives like tolls and fees because they can claim it's not a tax, and it's certainly not progressive because it whacks drivers regardless of income or the price of their vehicle. The contractor in a pickup pays the same as his client in a Porsche. But it also allows the much-loved "market" to winnow out gridlock.
The Puget Sound Regional Council has received a $1.88 million grant from the feds to use global positioning technology in a pilot project "aimed at finding the best ways to advance value pricing in transportation planning." They further describe value pricing as "a way of harnessing the power of the market and reducing the waste associated with congestion." The Cascadia Project, an initiative of the conservative Discovery Institute, also likes tolls and value pricing. If it weren't for Discovery's umbrella, one might call the policy positively Darwinian.
That's pretty close to an ideological consensus. Nevertheless, local politicians and officials are nervous about both traditional tolls and turning our streets into payways.
Frustration with aging infrastructure and congestion is high, and the public has proved that it is willing to dig deep to solve transportation problems. But some tolls could get so high that they make little common sense, and there is a general skepticism about turning the streets into amenities that restrict freedom of movement and disproportionately hurt the working poor – especially as those people are driven farther and farther from the city due to rising housing costs.
A report to the Legislature earlier this year made clear that tolls on the new Highway 520 floating bridge across Lake Washington could likely be between $7 and $10 per round trip – and it still wouldn't pay for the project. Some believe the tolls would be less if we started charging bridge tolls now, before the bridge is replaced. State Treasurer Michael Murphy has said he would not approve any proposal that didn't include tolling the Interstate 90 bridge, too. You see, "free candy" spreads easily.
Part of the 520 problem is that it doesn't pencil out unless you consider 40-year time frames and the junk-bond financing that sank the Seattle Monorail Project.
Congestion pricing is also being considered in the city proper, but cautiously. The Report from the Citizen's Transportation Committee to the mayor in 2004 recommended that Seattle begin looking at user fees in the city as part of a regional or statewide plan to do so. The committee also recommended further study:
The committee recognizes the emerging technical possibilities for "electronic tolling" that could monitor travel on city transportation facilities and even facilitate automatic billing of toll fees to motorists. Although the committee was favorably disposed to the concept of tolling, the political and technical challenges of establishing a tolling system within the City of Seattle appear too formidable to recommend pursuing at this time.The city went in a different direction (boosting property taxes) to get big bucks from the voters for a major "streets and bridges" rehab. It's saying something about the popularity of tolling the streets when a property tax hike looks like a great option. But reports like this have been laying the groundwork for the toll and fee policies Sims is bringing into the daylight. Seattle City Council member Peter Steinbrueck is also bringing forward a new plan to study "mobility" along the waterfront as part of a "surface solution" to the Alaskan Way Viaduct conundrum. It includes looking at congestion pricing. The timetable for this conversation is driven by aging infrastructure and safety, desire for congestion relief, new technology, increased concern about global warming, and demands by the business community and developers that we make the region more suitable for growth and economic expansion. That will certainly involve major changes in the way we pay for and manage – or micromanage – everyone's movement. Congestion pricing or value pricing or free candy, whatever you call it, is a way to force us to change our behavior. It's an automotive sin tax. As such it is a huge factor in larger social and cultural policy: Whose pocketbooks will be impacted, how will people get to work, how will our conception of the city and the entire region change as a result? Other important questions concern the flawed and vulnerable Big Brother technology involved in electronic tolling, the technological "advance" that makes the idea practical. I plan to revisit that topic soon. Meantime, Sims is doing a public service. Pro or con, the time for the broader public discussion of road tolls, user fees, and free candy is now.
Topics:
520 Bridge,
King County,
Metro Transit,
Mossback,
Seattle,
Seattle City Hall,
Washington,
Politics,
Business,
Transportation
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, May 4, 7:20 a.m. Inappropriate
What about "Exempt" vehicles: This is all so autophobic!!! Will all the government vehicles with their 'exempt' licence plates pay the tolls and fees?? What about all the PHONY handicap/disability licence plates that do not pay parking meter charges?? It is all a scam!! TAX THE BICYCLES BIG TIME.
Posted Fri, May 4, 7:39 a.m. Inappropriate
What if we all wake up the day after implementing the congestion surveillance toll program and we start getting 20 percent of the commute to use mass transit or work from home? What happens to the funding model? The bills for the system improvements will still have to be paid and they will not close the tolling program. Maybe Ron has another tax he would like to suggest.
Posted Fri, May 4, 8:34 a.m. Inappropriate
I would never vote for tolls which did not see that the cost to the wealthy was equivalent to the cost to the poor, and there has not been a single word uttered to that equity issue.
How can Democrats back such a cultural attack on their greatest supporters?
Posted Fri, May 4, 9:50 a.m. Inappropriate
during my near 14 years here, the traffic gridlock on 45th street n.e. particularly at the intersection of 45th and 15th avenue n.e [+ the mercer street interchange] have not improved one bit. at 15th and 45 all it takes is one police person [with gasmask] to make a huge improvement. all that seattle processing not even a sausage produces.
ny city mayor bloomberg recently proposed an $ 8.00 fee for all out of ny city traffic entering the city proper. i have no idea whether that will fly.
mr. berger certainly has a most arguable position when he points out that the poorest commuters who must commute from farthest away will pay a disproportionate price. however, ron sims idea of more busses neeeds to be amplifed and made into a major all around hog: mini buses to serve outlying areas to funnel commuters wherever they need to go. just think of all the smashing accidents we will have then to make headlines in the local news!
the society pays the price for having submitted to the automobile, oil, cement, and rubber industry. seattle appears to have been a great street car city once upon a time. the fragmentation into consumer mondads is exemplified by the fact that it must be more than 75 % of cars have only a single occupant.
Posted Fri, May 4, 3:13 p.m. Inappropriate
Unfortunately, Seattle's crabby old "little guy" wouldn't know a good deal if it mowed his overgrown lawn.
Posted Fri, May 4, 3:31 p.m. Inappropriate
What? Tolls no more target the poor than auto insurance or the $3+ a gallon (including taxes!) we all pay at the pump.
Whether you look at income or housing prices, it's well established that less money correlates strongly with longer commutes. Spending 2 or more hours each day on the road takes an enormous financial toll on the working poor. Think of the gas money, gas prices inflated by high demand, auto maintenance, childcare, and lost time on the clock, not to mention the psychological costs of not seeing much of your family.
For a few bucks a day, tolls would give the SOV drivers some of their lost time back, and would reduce the indirect expenses mentioned above. It would also make public transit a more viable alternative, given people the option of saving thousands per year.
Yours is a nearsighted analysis. Step back and look at the bigger picture.
Posted Fri, May 4, 5:03 p.m. Inappropriate
We, as a nation, have decided to subsidise certain transportation types. Other countries subsidise other ones. No subway or local light rail line in the world that I am aware of actually pays for itself. Even the Paris and Tokyo subways are subsidised by the state, because of perceived benefits.
If we institute tolls, we should be clear about why we are doing it- not to pay for the roads, although it may help a bit- but really, as social engineering.
Here in the USA, we like to pretend we are all swaggering rugged individualists, cowboy capitalists, and that we engage in NO central planning.
Complete rubbish, of course. We as a country make decisions all the time, thru laws, tax codes, zoning, subsidies, and government funding, picking winners and losers, and there is no reason we should not do the same with transit and toll roads.
Tolls on specific highways around here will have specific results. To obtain those results would be the reason we put in tolls. As long as we are honest about that, and discuss it openly, I think it is a very viable way to channel traffic and growth in the northwest.
Of course, in an ideal world, hell, in even a slightly rational world, it would go hand in hand with zoning and planning decisions, low cost housing subsidies, mass transit, and other regional plans, so its impact would be fair and beneficial.
Fat chance of that, around here.
Posted Fri, May 4, 6:10 p.m. Inappropriate
Government is responsible for supplying the system of roads, highways, bridges, and ferries through which transportation occurs. The transportation value of the total system is the sum of the values of the trips taken by those using the system. Trips during peak times are more valuable than at non-peak times. A congested system can dramatically reduce the overall value of the system. Note how taxing gas and cars has NOTHING to do with the value of a given trip to the user, and everything to do with the COST of making a trip.
Now imagine a system that allows us to VALUE all trips on all road segments by all users, and to charge accordingly. Space Age! Fantastic!
Not really. That's similar to what happens when you use a cell phone and pay your bill. If we update the transportation billing infrastructure so that it's similar to the cell phone's, we'll have a reasonable means for mediating all the concerns voiced by detractors.
I won't bore you with the technology, but assume that each vehicle transmits which pieces of infrastructure it uses to a wireless Transportation Cloud in the Sky, and that you will someday receive a bill similar to a cell phone bill that shows the cost of all your trips, segment by segment. Certainly, government will likely give away many FREE trips to the poor and those living on a fixed income. Likely some of these FREE trips will be at peak hours, but most will not. Rates at peak hours will use congestion pricing depending on actual traffic levels. The cost of using different transportation segments will vary. A normal road might be a nickel a mile. A bridge an extra couple of cents. A Ferry maybe a buck. A 520 bridge might cost five bucks. We'll all really SEE how much it our infrastructure costs us, and we'll act accordingly. That's the market at work.
Unlike the FREE CANDY SYSTEM we have now where our roads are free, we'll have the flexibility to create different kinds of road candy and price accordingly. We'll be able to give discounts to bulk users (say commuters, truckers and drivers of service vehicles). We'll be able to charge premium rates to people who don't care what the rate is.
In such a system, note how increased usage of a segment will mean increased revenue, and how accurate data will be available to users and government alike from which to make informed transportation decisions. No middlemen legislators needed. We will know EXACTLY which transportation segments are performing and which are not. Ultimately, we could tear up some road systems and replace them. Congested low-throughput downtown areas might be converted to bicycle friendly areas. Or we could choose to shut down a bridge or a viaduct because its just TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE.
How would this affect light rail funding? Quite a bit. Because now we'd have apples to apples comparisons of transportation modes. Everyone would insist on knowing trip costs for transit and how they compare to those for roads.
Most important, the skanky system of free funding of both roads and transit would disappear, leaving a truly Skanky Skelton suitable for burial.
Posted Fri, May 4, 7:50 p.m. Inappropriate
1. Too complicated.
2. A region which can't figure out if/how to repair 8000' feet of Viaduct cannot handle something so contentious and far-reaching as making people pay to drive on public roads.
3. Homeland Security is probably enthused about the program because of its potential for surveillance.
4. The toll which will pay for the bridge will discourage traffic, making income projections from such a toll too chancy.
Posted Fri, May 4, 8:31 p.m. Inappropriate
Toll for Studded Tires: If we are going to have bridge tolls, I would suggest tripling it (or more) for vehicles with studded tires. The damage studded tires have already done to the I-90 bridge is painfully obvious.
Posted Sat, May 5, 10:18 a.m. Inappropriate
I don't care if the SOV drivers get some of their precious time back. My concern is social equity where highways are concerned, I would reject any plan that gives services to the wealthy based on the thickness of their wallets. I want the people in Medina and M.I. to have the same incentive to use the bus as someone in Burien. In fact, it seems to me that the need for a barista to get to work at Starbucks is greater than the need for the CEO of Starbucks to get to his office in a timely fashion.
Actually, I don't see any movement toward the single and maybe only solution to travel congestion: the return to a national, frequent and comfortable rail system. The railroads were given the land they use under the requirement that they serve both freight and passengers. They successfully degraded passenger service until it collapsed. We need an alternative to air travel that can serve the general public in ways that enable ordinary people to cross the country economically and ecologically. Only rail travel fits that need.
Instead we talk about bikes (when we need trolleys back) and about nice open toll highways for wealthy people to get home in a timely manner. You want to force people into mass transit when you need to entice them into it. And however it is done, you need the Microsoft engineer sitting in the bus next to the Starbucks barista.
Posted Sat, May 5, 11:55 a.m. Inappropriate
- The social engineering project we now live in is one where we have free roads. As the road system becomes more and more overwhelmed it degrades in value and more costly to upgrade and maintain. That is where we are now. The system is degrading and taxpayers are backing away from the enormous cost.
- The goal of highways for the wealthy and public transit for the average person may be someone's fuzzy goal. What you really have is a whole lot of people who don't want to change and who don't want to give up the car they have for the mass transit that doesn't get them where they want to go.
- The $3.00-a-gallon-gas situation results from worldwide demand for oil being much greater than anticipated because of the economic growth of China. Sure, oil companies could build more refineries and they do manipulate prices on the margins, but Big Oil's goal is constant profits for decades. They like the way things are. No need to reap windfall profits only to make other energy source competitive with oil.
- The winnowing of those who can afford gas from those who cannot is certainly occurring. That's supply and demand. The dinosaurs aren't making more oil and the population of the world is over six billion. Eventually we use it all up. As it gets used up it becomes more scarce and costs more. It's a good thing that the average car driver doesn't have to directly pay for roads, or we'd see even more extreme winnowing, maybe even whimpering.
- You "reject any plan that gives services to the wealthy based on the thickness of their wallets." More to the point, you want them to have "the same incentive to use the bus as someone in Burien." This is an interesting social equity problem. What it means is REALLY GREAT bus service. The KC folks recently asked bus-riders and non-bus-riders what would be the biggest improvement to the transit system MORE FREQUENT stops is what they said (or more correctly, what I recall them saying). So any place you find frequent service, e.g., NYC and Chicago, you'll find that both the wealthy and the poor use the same system.
- People left the rail system in droves during the 50's and 60's when they found out they could control their transportation futures with cars on a network of roads, or with planes that got them where they wanted to go more quickly. By the way, air travel has become MUCH more affordable over the decades and is no longer just for the wealthy.
- Trolleys have been tried in many places. But like buses they need to be frequent if you want general usage. It's easier to simply use buses. That's why it's also easier, cheaper and more flexible to do bus rapid transit (BRT) than light rail. (But you probably wouldn't get all the Federal "stupid money" thrown at buses. )
- "Nice open toll highways for wealthy people" may be the result of a decent system. But more likely we'll have free highways with congestion pricing of HOV lanes and bridges that will improve traffic flow for the system during peak periods. The wealthy person will have access to these lanes and to toll bridges at a fair cost, but so will the commuter, the guy riding his service van around the city, and the poor person with a need for speed that he deems worthy of the cost.
- If you think about it, all forms of mass transit are essentially CHAUFFEUR-DRIVEN modes of transportation. The automobile is the workingman's do-it-yourself way to get to work. Ultimately, we should be able to provide many levels of CHAUFFEUR service and entice all segments of society into mass transit. Unfortunately, mass transit doesn't provide the network coverage, the ready availability, privacy, and comfort of the average automobile. It's main claim to fame is pure and simple cost savings for some small percentage of possible trips.
Posted Sat, May 5, 7:43 p.m. Inappropriate
passenger trains: Your comments are well expressed. I would argue only one point. It is not a simple fact that people abandoned trains for cars, though the Interstate system was rising as passenger trains were dying. Anyone who remembers the old train system knows how determinedly the railways made taking the train a living hell. From, say, 1950 to 1960 the crack passenger train "The 400" from Chicago to the Twin Cities, slipped from a crowded, sleek luxurious and inexpensive mode of travel to a disgusting shell of itself. The Chicago Northwestern let upkeep go to blazes, toilets were disgusting, dining cars repulsive, no water, no airconditioning. The trains were never on time and the service was dismal This was going on all across America, so the companies could claim that trains were abandoned by the people. Don't believe it. The railways should be forced to accept their original chartered duties and provide frequent and comfortable service, though I don't think for a minute that there is a politician with the guts to propose it. Moreover, a side benefit to renewed train service would be a blood transfusion to all the "flown over" cities in America. Small town America has been largely destroyed by our abandoning them to the random motorist, or to Greyhound, which has shrunk to nothing itself in recent years.
Posted Sat, May 5, 11:26 p.m. Inappropriate
Since WWII, our social engineering has zoned against mixed use development and walkable communities, used federal funds to build an un-priced limited access highway system that has driven sprawl development, allowed development of arterials without sidewalks or good street grids, and funded transportation through gneral taxes rather than user fees, sending inefficient price signals to drivers. We are now discussing a change in social engineering to marginally change land use away from sprawl, to change roadway pricing toward efficient demand management, and change both land use and transport to forestall global warming.
Executive Sims is the very best political leader we have. He has great intelligence, high energy, high ideals, and sound public policy. Both his suggestions Berger cited, income tax for the state and regional systemwide dynamic tolling of limited access highways, are exactly the correct policy.
Another poster mentioned NYC. Check out "the Talk of the Town" by Elizabeth Kolbert in the May 7 New Yorker. It outlines the issues behind cordon pricing well.
Berger does not notice that there are two types of tolling being discusssed. Sims is advocating dynamic tolling where the toll would vary by time of day so that it was just high enough to manage demand to maintain flow at about 45 mph. At that speed, highway throughput is maximized. At off-peak times, the toll may be zero. Today, congested "freeways" actually carry less than the maximum. Secretary MacDonald had a great illustration of this in the Seattle Times using a funnel and rice. WSDOT will soon use variable tolls on SR-167. The private contractor on the Narrows Bridge will use fixed tolls designed to maximize revenue and pay off bonds. They will not vary by time of day. The Legislature and RTID seem to be suggesting this type of revenue maximizing tolling on SR-520 (and I-90 too) by relying on tolling to raise about $1.2 billion of the capital cost of the replacement floating highway. Wow.
The SR-520 project is too grand and under funded by both the Legislature and the RTID. It should be both tolled and shrunk. The statewide gas tax should have been much higher and indexed to inflation. Oh well, maybe later.
Dynamic tolling makes great sense in a market economy. Free freeways lead to market failure. In the northwest, pricing was used to solve three recent crisises: electricity generation (WPPSS), solid waste, and water. In all three, rates were raised and less power, garbage, and water were consumed. The law of demand is powerful. the Soviets did not price bread well and queues formed; in the US, we do not price freeways, and traffic congestion results.
Using part of the toll revenue to subsidize additional transit service is a second best solution to the equity concern raised by Berger. Note that if the toll is set to maintain free flow, both general purpose traffic and transit will benefit. Everybody wins if enough trips can be diverted to other modes or other times of day.
There are methods to protect privacy in tolling.
Posted Sun, May 6, 4:31 a.m. Inappropriate
Excellent informed post. Three responses below:
1. Tolling and Its Uses.
Managing our transportation assets well is a huge part of improving our transportation system. A key asset management method, as you point out, is dynamic tolling, which seems the ideal way to regulate traffic flow so that the "funnel doesn't get plugged up with rice," to use the Doug McDonald analogy.
I see that the Narrows Bridge will use tolling only until the bond is paid off. That's what we did with 520 too, and look where we are now thirty years later.
Had we kept tolling, we'd have revenue to build a new bridge. The lesson is that we need to have tolls in perpetuity so that money is available for M&O; and ultimately for replacement. We should also use dynamic tolling at the same time to control peak-hour traffic as you suggest. If we combined all these uses for tolling, we'd have a robust tolling solution that could be applied to many projects, including 520.
If we generalize the polling regimen above across ALL infrastructure elements we can get to infrastructure-segment trip pricing, which is in my view the Holy Grail for fixing our transportation problems. To implement, we'd use a transportation billing infrastructure similar to cell cell phone billing. We'd have to have mandatory transponders in cars and wireless billing of the transponders by the segments themselves. With pricing information available to drivers, over-time they'd learn to self regulate and act as informed consumers. Government billing entities would have sufficient business intelligence to make wise transportation investments. Ultimately, this is the market at work.
2. Agrreement
I want to acknowledge the following statements where I agree with you whole-heartedly:
"Since WWII, our social engineering has zoned against mixed use development and walkable communities, used federal funds to build an un-priced limited access highway system that has driven sprawl development, allowed development of arterials without sidewalks or good street grids, and funded transportation through gneral taxes rather than user fees, sending inefficient price signals to drivers. We are now discussing a change in social engineering to marginally change land use away from sprawl, to change roadway pricing toward efficient demand management, and change both land use and transport to forestall global warming."
"All public policy is social engineering."
"Free freeways lead to market failure."
"The Soviets did not price bread well and queues formed; in the US, we do not price freeways, and traffic congestion results."
"If the toll is set to maintain free flow, both general purpose traffic and transit will benefit. Everybody wins if enough trips can be diverted to other modes or other times of day."
3. Sims and Vision
You extol Mr. Sims virtues because he agrees with you on policy. Mossback's point is that he rails for these good policies even though he knows they are losers with the public, i.e., skanky skeletons. Better to create new policies with new names based on sound principles that have a chance for real success. "Vision without execution is hallucination." said Thomas Edison. (Some have rephrased this as "Vision without money is hallucination.") Unfortunately, what we have in our current transportation system is "Execution without vision." Ultimately, we need a little Einstein --- "Imagination is more important than knowledge." The recent movement into tolling is starting show that imagination can occur, even in government. I'm guardedly optimistic!
- Stuka
Posted Sun, May 6, 6 a.m. Inappropriate
Given Mr. Sims collectivist visions of transportation, taxation and housing you are sadly mistaken if you believe that any tolling body that exists under his authority will be safe from plunder unless protected by an outside independant body. In other words, if you collect money via tolls for congestion relief and captial improvements it will become an attractive nusiance to opportunistic politicians like Sims. Some other "Emergency" will require borrowing the funds and we will be right back where we are now. Do not buy into the tolling hype, it's a bad idea and there are not enough protections to ensure that the funds, if collected, would be used properly used. These folks have a track record of being tall on promises and short on delivery of services.
Posted Mon, May 7, 12:48 a.m. Inappropriate
For example, let's say we have a driver named Michael Schumacher who owns a Ferrari with the ID 1234. As he drives his transponder transmits the encrypted car ID along with GPS and timestamp info to the InfrastructureWarehouse, where the GPS info is mapped to a particular infrastructure segment.
Let's say that Michael is monitored driving on the University Bridge five times during the month. At the end of the month, the usage info for ID 1234 including the five uses of the University Bridge is sent to the CarWarehouse from the InfrastructureWarehouse.
The CarWarehouse gets the aggregate of all the charges, but not the GPS or timestamp info. If it costs a nickel to use the bridge, then the owner of car ID 1234 will get a bill for $$0.25 for five uses of the University Bridge. At the owner's request, the owner could request timestamp and GPS info, but that would be opt-in information. For those who feared that aggregate infrastructure info could be put to evil use by government -- and certainly it could! -- we might also have an option where ONLY the car ID and aggregate bill are sent and no other info. In this case, NO ONE entity would have any infrastructure info about Michael Shumacher other than the total infrastructure charge for his Ferrari.
Of course, the information does exists in separate silos, and if probable cause existed, subpoenas could be issued to pursue a particular individual in a criminal investigation, but that's not too different from what we have now.
In most ways this isn't much different from getting a Visa bill or a cell phone bill, except we have government involved in one form or another, either directly or indirectly.
Carmeron, you point out your distrust in government and fear that the money collected will be an "attractive nuisance." I totally agree! It's a hard problem because you can protect the money from one political entity, and another will rise up from out of nowhere and make a claim on it. The one huge benefit that infrastructure billing has over the current system is that through pricing we will see detailed information about how the system is being used, and how the public values the system. This will in my estimation make a lot of transportation decisions fairly obvious and straightforward. We can let politicians take credit for these good decisions.
Still, to address your concern, it'd have to be mandatory that we have a Transportation Infrastructure Authority (TIA) responsible for the whole system. (I nominate Doug McDonald as its first czar). Ideally, the TIA becomes a blackbox, funded with user fees, that builds, maintains, and operates our transportation infrastructure. Revenue would be mandated by law for use only on transportation related projects. The TIA could be given special authority to look into streamlining existing laws to help expedite and lower the cost of building transportation infrastructure. Even with all of the safeguards above, I'm sure that the politicians would still be able extract their pounds of flesh. We might have several TIAs using infrastructure pricing, and they would likely have supervising boards populated with politicians (which is essentially what the Sound Transit Board is). But we'd get transportation value for our money in return.
If we did a system like this, we'd have to phase it in as we phase out the old, which would give us plenty of opportunity to experiment and find what works best.
Posted Mon, May 7, 8:11 a.m. Inappropriate
Tolls from driving on (most) freeways in France and Italy can easily exceed the cost of gas at $6 - $7 per gallon for the duration of the tolled drive. This is only one reason that I tend to avoid freeways there, unless I am in a real hurry. Secondary roads there are usually very good alternatives.
As for here, tolls for bridges anywhere are to be expected, since there usually isn't an affordable alternative. Tolls for priveleged HOV lane usage will also have customers willing to pay for the luxury, and that won't be a problem.
Otherwise, you can talk about tolls all you want. Just don't plan to mention that position if you want to be elected to the office you are running for. Otherwise, you might as well preach for a state income tax and universal health insurance.
I wonder if there will be a toll for the new waterfront tunnel? What do you think?
See you on the scrap heap.
Posted Mon, May 7, 8:26 a.m. Inappropriate
Transponders. Pay as you go.
A region which can't figure out if/how to repair 8000' feet of Viaduct cannot handle something so contentious and far-reaching as making people pay to drive on public roads.
The region has it figured out. It is the City of Seattle which is being obstructionist here.
The toll which will pay for the bridge will discourage traffic, making income projections from such a toll too chancy.
Less traffic would be a GOOD thing in the minds of many, if that any chance of becoming reality.
Perhaps you didn't live here when the 520 bridge was built. The original toll was 35 cents. About ten years later, the toll was reduced to 10 cents. The toll was lifted in 1979, TWENTY YEARS ahead of schedule. Of course, phenomenal growth occurred on the eastside during that time, but the traffic will still be needing that access, even though there is a drive-around alternative, or another (toll) bridge.
You can also look at the new tolled Tacoma Narrows Bridge for guidance. I wish tolls would reduce the traffic there, but the reduction won't be significant compared to the convenience of the new bridge.
Posted Mon, May 7, 9:54 a.m. Inappropriate
When I lived in California I used the "FastPass" system. You pay an initial deposit for a transponder (~$35?), and pre-pay your tolls. This can be in the form of mailing in a checks, linking a credit card/atm, or have it set up to automatically take money from your checking account when funds ran low.
There are two types of toll boths - ones that take cash, and others that you drive fairly quickly through with FastPass (~35mph). As you drive through if your account has money you see a green light. If you get a red light you have to pull over and pay with cash.
So the answer to your question is likely there will be no need for a collection agency piece of the toll system. As long as you pre-pay you can drive where you want. Otherwise, stick to city streets and take the long way around the lake.
Posted Mon, May 7, 10:07 a.m. Inappropriate
Granted, tolling of bridges isn't Mom and Apple Pie. On the other hand, a politician should be able to quite plausibly say that he's in favor of Lowering Taxes by replacing revenue with tolling.
Here's where pricing comes in. The biggest ANTI group will be those who use a bridge the most. But with bulk pricing you give frequent and regular work-related users bulk pricing, or a flat rate for a day or a week, so that they see that they're concerns are being addressed and that they're getting a deal.
By the way, a politician might also reasonably argue for the elimination of the gas tax and elimination of vehicle licensing fees in return for acceptance of tolling (although eventually, the smart thing to do from a revenue perspective would be to slap a sales tax on gas, so that the tax went up along with the price of gas). To make any of this work, we have to first make people understand how much they're paying NOW out of pocket each year for transporation infrastructure. The high sales tax pays for a lot of it, and that's thousands of dollars a year for your average household.
Posted Mon, May 7, 11:36 a.m. Inappropriate
Back in the sixties a dollar was worth about eight of today's dollars. So the 35 cent toll, one way, was equivalent to $2.80. For comparison, the new Tacoma Narrows bridge is charging $3.00 to go one way (the return trip is free using the old parallel bridge). So round trip on a new 520 bridge would be $5.60 if the rates were comparable. (Note that my back-of-the-envelope number is almost exactly the $5.66 low-end round-trip estimate of DOT. The high-end DOT number is $8.13.)
Note two critical DOT assumptions:
1). the project would be bonded for 40 years instead of 30 as with the Narrows , and
2) I-90 would also be tolled, thus assuring that everyone wouldn't abandon 520 for I-90.
I'm a big fan of NOT bonding and borrowing. Instead use pay-as-you-go tolling from the existing bridge. That's the sane affordable way to proceed. It'd cut the total cost approximately in half. The cost is at $4.38B right now, but would be approximately half that if we don't have to pay interest. Interest at 5% over 40 years consumes about 57% of the total cost; at 4% interest it consumes about 50% of the total cost. The upshot is that not paying interest is a HUGE deal and why we should start tolling immediately so that we can pay as we go.
I'm not sure whether or not the total tolling revenue includes both 520 and I-90. If it doesn't include I-90, then we potentially have double the revenue coming in. Also, I haven't taken the time to see how much of the $4.38B estimate for 520 includes finance charges and reserves. For the Narrows financing it was about 10% of the project cost, which means that the 520 project cost, less financing costs, is more like $3.96B.
For more detail on the 520 bridge estimates check out this TNT article.
Posted Mon, May 7, 12:14 p.m. Inappropriate
So one simple and prudent proposal would be that we wait 14yrs to build the new 520 bridge while we collect the money to pay for it.
I think a good compromise is the following plan:
2008 Start Tolling both I-90 and 520
Use the proceeds from both to fund first phase of
2013 Start Building
2018 Open New Bridge
Posted Mon, May 7, 12:17 p.m. Inappropriate
"I think a good compromise is the following plan:"
Posted Mon, May 7, 2:13 p.m. Inappropriate
Witness the shenanigan by the legislature and governor in eviscerating what the public statewide has repeatedly, vociferously, and overwhelmingly determined it wants: $30 car tabs. Now, per a bill the governor signed last week, local jurisdictions can raise tab fees $20/year every year until the end of time. Don't you know that many out there in elected officialdom lust in their hearts to get ‘er done! I hear Ron Sims panting now.
Roads are what the people want so build them. Those who use them can and should pay for them. Tolls are a good thing, a revenue-raising thing, a user fee thing. But tolls shouldn't be a social engineering thing.
The debate over how to calculate or collect them - scanners, electronic what'sits, etc. - is less important to me than the thinking and motives of those who propose them. When I go to the movies, I pay a toll to get in. Sometimes, because of market forces, I pay less of a toll - matinees, for example - but I still pay a toll. There's a difference between peak and off-peak - ask any resort - and I suppose one could argue that a roadway toll system could reflect this.
Except the difference between a road and a movie is that no matter when you drive on the road, your impact upon it is the same, whereas a cheaper price for the matinee acknowledges that unsold seats are just that: unsold. Wear and tear on them isn't a pricing factor, but it is when it comes to roads.
What tolls shouldn't reflect is someone's idea as to how I use that roadway. The purpose of the toll is to raise revenue to pay for the road, not to get me out of my car and into a bus. And the toll should be one price for all; rich or poor, it makes no never mind.
The toll charged Mossback and I at the local multi-plex is the same irrespective of which of us is rich and which of us is poor. I leave it to you to determine the which from the which. Those who argue that tolls fall disproportionately on the poor miss the point of them. In fact, under a social justice theory, it might be argued that cars and trucks driven by the rich should be charged less since they tend to be newer, better maintained, cause less road wear and accidents, are more fuel efficient, etc.
On this point, though, I'm sure Mossback and his rich friends won't belabor the injustice done them by a one-price-fits-all policy. Noblesse oblige has its moments.
Value pricing or using tolls as a "sin tax" is anathema to me. Raise revenue to pay for things, not reward or punish us for choices that are good or bad in your opinion or the opinion of some bureaucrat. After all, I might get in power some day, and not many in King County or Seattle would appreciate me legislating my POV into law and extracting from their pocketbooks the cash to pay the tab. It's like saying, "Persecute me, then let me pay for the privilege of my pain and misery." Only in black leather, thank you.
I remember stopping at the old 520-toll plaza to drop in my quarters. It got the job done and paid for the bridge. It was simple, accepted, and worked. What's the big deal today? All the blather about congestion pricing and other jargon-laced phrases delays the necessary and obfuscates the obvious.
Plan for roads to carry people because people want roads. Finance them with bonds to be paid off with tolls. I suppose it's OK once they're paid off to continue collecting a few bucks for maintenance, but only if they're designated for such. Stop the chatter about what's best for me according to you. And quit going to meetings!
The Piper
Posted Mon, May 7, 6:27 p.m. Inappropriate
"Except the difference between a road and a movie is that no matter when you drive on the road, your impact upon it is the same, whereas a cheaper price for the matinee acknowledges that unsold seats are just that: unsold. Wear and tear on them isn't a pricing factor, but it is when it comes to roads."
Without tolling, the price on the highways is zero. At a price of zero, the matinee could be over-consumed, as our highways are at peak periods. So many film goers would cram into the theatre that the enjoyment of others would be impacted: folks would be sitting in the aisles, in the front, and standing in the view of others. The theatre would be congested. Valuable things priced at zero suffer the tradegy of the commons and are over consumed.
The major impact of driving on a highway at rush hour is not wear and tear of the concrete, but the delay imposed by all the other drivers and transit riders of vehicles enterring the highway beyond the point it is flowing at 45 mph. the vehicle throughput declines and speeds decline.
As in my first post, there are two types of tolling: revenue and demand management. I have suggested that the gas tax or some other user fee proportional to use be higher to pay for the capital cost and tolling be used to fund long-term maintenance and additional transit service that addresses the equity argument. It is not a question of sin, but of efficiently allocating a scarce resource: limited access highway lane space.
If dynamic tolling keeps the highways free-flow, all modes operate better: cars, freight, and transit.
Posted Mon, May 7, 7:35 p.m. Inappropriate
But I'm sticking to my guns that tolls should be for the purpose of raising revenue. Period. When I choose to travel should be exclusively up to me. A major distinction needs to be drawn in my analogy between going to the moview and travelling on the highway: the movie has a limited number of showtimes, while the highway is open 24/7/365. The highway is more like cable tv's On Demand service, which gives me my movie at a frequency akin to my access to the highway. The key is I still choose.
Our gas tax is already too high. To suggest it needs to be increased is to suggest that the financial rack upon which we are stretched be given a couple turns all for our own good. Remember, I said only in black leather.
And transit should pay for itself. Call me crazy if you want, but subsidies of any type bother me.
The scarce resource (highway lanes) is kept so artificially. If the demand is there for more lanes, build them. Let the motorist pay for them with tolls, and we're all winners for it. When will we reach a saturation point? That's for the market to decide.
People drive cars because they want to. They take other forms of transportation mostly because they have to. In a democracy, which market economies tend to foster, the people should decide.
Increasingly the people say they want more roads, more lanes on the roads we have, and better maintenance on both. Yet policy makers - always in a position to know better what the people need than the people themselves - insist upon their heavily subsidized and economically inefficient alternatives. It's almost as if we're being told, "Let them drink unleaded."
The Piper
Posted Mon, May 7, 10:05 p.m. Inappropriate
As a nation, we subsidise all kinds of transit- in fact, virtually nothing "pays for itself".
Without federally funding, there would be no interstate system- they have not, and never will, "pay for themselves"- gas taxes do not pay what it costs, either locally or nationally. The Interstate system was built for the military, as a response to the Soviets in the cold war, and there was never any discussion of it "paying for itself".
Without the federal government giving the railroads right of ways, there would be no railroads in this country.
Without federally funded air traffic control systems, airports, GPS systems, and the FAA, there would be no commercial air traffic.
There is not a subway, light rail, or bus system in any major city in any first world country that is not heavily subsidised.
I suppose if you were to take the Mini-buses in Bangkok as a goal, you could possibly come up with non-subsidised transportation- but even then, the roads are paid for by the government- and, in that instance, you have no insurance, no vehicle inspections, and crazy teenagers driving em at breakneck speeds.
And as far as tolls being instituted to control people's behaviors and driving habits- again, you might consider moving to the Congo, where no one cares- but in the USA, as in every civilised country, the government makes all kinds of laws, taxes, and zoning regulations to control your behaviour towards societal goals.
Get used to it, its the world you live in.
The trend towards using pricing to modulate traffic patterns is not new at all- and has been quite successful in downtown London, Singapore, Mexico City, Florence, and many other cities around the world.
It is no different, or more morally repugnant, than taxing you 5 bucks a pack to get you to quit smoking, or making liquor expensive so young people cant afford to binge drink.
Posted Fri, Aug 10, 8:05 a.m. Inappropriate
Air Travel: Airports built, expanded and maintained using local, state and federal tax dollars. The air traffic control system paid for by federal (tax) money.
Rail Freight: The land the tracks are on was given to the railroads by local, state and federal governments in the 19th and 20th centuries, along with large sections of land on either side of the tracks that the railroads were free to use or sell as they saw fit. There is also government paid over/underpasses and grade crossings to enable more efficient movement of trains as well as the government paid for road to and from rail facilities.
Shipping: Useless without port facilities usually paid for by state and local governments as well as government paid for roads to move goods to and from the ports. Also supported by goverment paid Navy, Coast Guard and lighthouse facilities as well as Army Corps of Engineers dredged ports and shipping channels.
Roads: Gas (user) taxes don't even begin to approach the actual cost of road and highways, let alone the indirect costs of traffic, pollution, injuries and deaths. There are not only the building costs, but maintenance, cleaning and patrolling which over the lifetime of the road cost more than the initial construction costs. Check the budget of cities, counties and states and they will all have budgets for roads that are not paid for by gas taxes but by general funds.. If gas taxes paid for all of the costs of roads you wouldn't need tolls or bond issues.
If you eliminated all of the various types of subsidies every type of transportation receives in this country all types of travel would soon grind to a halt.
So again, if no other mode of travel exists without some form of government subsidy why should transit be held to a different standard and be forced to pay for itself?
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.