Washington lawmakers plan to pass a major highway-tolling bill
No sense waiting: With failure of Proposition 1 in metro Puget Sound, they say, guidelines need to be established for the inevitable use of tolls to pay for transportation improvements.
Look for a major highway tolling bill to come out of the 2008 Washington Legislature, which convenes in January. Transportation leaders say they're confident they can pass legislation next year that will create a framework for how tolls will be imposed and collected down the road. That might not mean tolls will be collected anytime soon, however.
"I think everybody understands that tolling is in our future, there's just no question about it," says State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, chair of the Senate Transportation Committee. "We need some general guidelines on how we do tolling across the state. Who's going to collect the tolls, who's going to be responsible for collecting the tolls?
The bill as drafted says the Legislature would have sole authority to impose tolls, thus excluding local jurisdictions. Toll prices would be set by the Washington State Transportation Commission, an appointed body. The bill would allow tolls to continue to be collected after a project is paid off - a significant departure from current policy. Finally, the legislation permits toll prices to fluctuate between peak and off-peak travel times, which is called "variable pricing." Other key decisions will be whether tolling can be used to manage demand and whether money raised from tolls could be applied broadly – say, to underwrite transit.
Lawmakers say the failure of Proposition 1, the Puget Sound-area roads-and-transit ballot measure, is contributing to a speeded timeline for imposing tolls. The money is needed to fund mega-projects like replacement of the Highway 520 floating bridge across Lake Washington. Officials are trying to come up with a financing plan by Jan. 1. With defeat of Proposition 1, the $4.4 billion dollar 520 project is now about $2 billion short. A new floating bridge could not open before 2018, so the sooner tolls are applied, even on the existing bridge, the lower they can be. That could mean tolls will have to be imposed on the current bridge as early as 2009. And perhaps also on Interstate 90, the other floating bridge across Lake Washington, so commuters don't just divert around one toll bridge.
"The message [from voters] is ... use user fees, and this is a user fee," says state Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, chair of the House Transportation Committee. But charging commuters a pre-construction toll is a tough sell, says Rep. Fred Jarrett, R-Mercer Island, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation Committee. "Somebody made the comment to me that it was like going into a BMW dealer and saying I want to sign up for a BMW, and they say, 'OK, your payment is $500 a month, and we'll deliver the car to you in 2012,'" explains Jarrett. "That's not the way we've trained customers to act in this country. I think there's a political push-back that comes with that."
Jarrett says a different solution would be to tap the state budget surplus to help fund top-priority road projects. That could also help keep the price of tolls in the $3 to $6 range - something lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say they're committed to doing. But so far, majority Democrats have resisted the idea of dipping into the general fund to pay for highway projects.
Other possible sources of 520 money are money pledged for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct on Seattle's waterfront, which is also a safety problem and a political can of worms (though at least it is not a serious congestion headache like 520); and some form of a regional carbon tax, where purchasers of gas-guzzlers and other carbon-heavy items pay a surcharge.
It's not just the failure of Proposition 1 that's creating a budget pinch. Federal money for state highway projects has all but dried up. Prospects for another roads-and-transit ballot measure appear dim. And revenue from the gas tax are showing signs of flattening. The state has increased gas taxes in recent years, but the fundamental imbalance remains: With aging infrasctructure and growing congestion, there just aren't enough sources of money without the feds. Taxpayers are simultaneously clamoring for relief and saying no to raising taxes.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Tue, Nov 20, 12:26 p.m. inappropriate
Ah, yes: Good to read about the "Roads for the Rich" program. We will keep those bridges wide open, so those who can afford to drive over the water will have nothing keeping them away from the Bellevue malls. As for those who can't dump six bucks into the bucket, well, tough. If you were rich (like those people crossing the bridge) you could come on over the water, too.
Posted Tue, Nov 20, 2:16 p.m. inappropriate
What's wrong with tolling?: We need to remind ourselves that we live in a capitalist society. We allocate goods based on price. It may not be great, but it's still the best, most efficient way.
A crowded bridge needs better allocation than first come, first serve. Incentives need to be created to avoid crowding. User pricing is the most efficacious way to meet this goal.
Also if infrastructure costs are not going to be paid through general tax dollars (which is evident from politicians across the country and across the aisle) then the end users need to pay. Tolling is essential for operating and maintaining a working system of roads and transit.
There is nothing wrong with tolling.
Posted Tue, Nov 20, 2:30 p.m. inappropriate
RE: What's wrong with tolling?: And the better allocation for space on the bridge will be by personal wealth? This is the Capitalist way? We no longer as a society see that absolute essentials are available to the people, but turn our infrastructure over to "profit" and allow people to drive, drink water, turn on lights, flush a toilet, etc., based on wealth? I think letting the bridges sink into the lake would be a fairer solution. Then will power, not wealth, would determine who made it around the lake. And the rich could sit in the traffic jams on Lake City Way, just like the ordinary people.
The elitist attitudes on this issue are appalling.
Posted Tue, Nov 20, 3:55 p.m. inappropriate
Tolling is the Slam Dunk Right Way to Pay for Road Infrastructure: Tolling has a lot of advantages over the way we're doing things now. The elitist argument has a bit of traction, but not much. In any tolling plan the following is likely to be true:
1. The toll will be held below what a full-recovery-of-cost price would demand. Note the mention of a $3.00 or $6.00 range.
2. A variety of subsidies will be available. If I recall correctly, the old toll on the 520 bridge was $.35 (or about $3.00 in today's dollars) but if you bought a book of 20 tickets, the cost was a dime (or about $1.00). So commuters will get special discounts. And likely there will be others for a variety of others: low-income, retired, handicapped, bike riders, students, delivery trucks, Martians, you get the picture.
3. Peak hour congestion pricing may be construed as elitist pricing, but that's also the opportunity to "soak the elitist" if that happens to be the way one thinks about the problem. Maybe we toll based on two factors: peak-hour demand AND the carbon footprint of the vehicle trip based on ize/weight/mpg of car divided by number of riders. So maybe the guy driving the Hummer by himself pays $10 to cross, the guy driving the Subaru by himself pays $8, the couple in a Hummer pays $5, and the couple in the Subaru pays $4.
As for the bill currently going through the legislature, I have a few comments on the questions the legislature will have to answer in that bill:
- Who's going to collect the tolls and who's going to be responsible for collecting the tolls? Probably should be a separate entity within WDOT.
- Should the Legislature have sole authority to impose tolls, thus excluding local jurisdictions? I think we need local involvement here so that part of the toll can go to local jurisdictions. Sending all the money to the State is not a good idea. Multiple entities counting the dollars will really help.
- Should toll prices be set by the Washington State Transportation Commission, an appointed body? Yes and no. The Commission should set out a framework that is flexible so that pricing can consider the cost of a particular bridge, the traffic flow on the bridge, and many other local factors. We definitely don't want Politburo planning.
- Should tolls continue to be collected after a project is paid off?
Absoltuely yes. This is the lesson we all have to internalize. Bridges and roads need to be maintained, operated, and replaced. Tolls should pay for that during the duration of the bridge's life.
- Should toll prices be allowed to fluctuate between peak and off-peak travel times through variable pricing?
This is also a no brainer. You increase the VALUE of a bridge by controlling the traffic flow so that it flows more quickly during peak hours. By increasing the flow, you also guarantee an increase in revenue. Certainly, you need some limits on how much can be charged, but to prevent variable pricing is unimaginable stupidity.
- Can tolling can be used to manage demand?
See above. Managing demand is managing the VALUE of the bridge to those using it. It increase the flow and increases revenue.
- Should money raised from tolls could be applied broadly – say, to underwrite transit?
Some of the money has to be applied broadly: for light rail, for the environment, for the local jurisdictions. The problem here is that we need to make sure that this isn't an Old Man and the Sea tale where the State, the City, and the County each get 20%, climate change get 10%, light rail gets 25%, and the bridge proper get 5%. My recommendation: 5% to operations and maintenance, 5% to replacement, no less than 60% to debt service and repayment, and 30% for locals, light rail and climate change. The main thing is that the bridge proper and repayment of bonds has to have an absolute priority.
Posted Tue, Nov 20, 4:32 p.m. inappropriate
RE: What's wrong with tolling?: Tolling can be reasonably socially just if a good share of the proceeds go toward improved public transit. It's not good enough to have them simply pay for the road's upkeep.
Posted Wed, Nov 21, 2:43 p.m. inappropriate
RE: What's wrong with tolling?: Dumping the money into transit just benefits another privileged class, transit riders. I'd ride transit, too, if it came within 5 miles of my house and could get me to work in less time than my 1-1/2 to 2 hour commute. But, change busses a half dozen times over the course of three to four hours each way? No thanks. Not everybody works in downtown Seattle, nor lives in surrounding King County. Here's a proposal that's fair to all: Ban the establishment of any new businesses on the East Side. Bellevue/Kirkland/Redmond/Bothell are a traffic nightmare. Force companies to relocate. Draconian? No more so than some of the "Force people to..." solutions to transit problems I hear from the King County elites.
Posted Sat, Nov 24, 4:13 p.m. inappropriate
funny stuka: in your 'definitive' analysis, no mention whatsoever of the usage of
the ALREADY IN PLACE gas tax . hmm ... let me guess, you would eliminate
this tax completely and TOLL all roads ? No ? TOLL major roads only ?
Let the gas tax stay in place and be waisted on light rail / bike paths and
other ecco facist agendas ?
Say, just how much money does this tax bring in to the state, on whatever
periodic basis the government uses ? And your 'source' for the amount ?
Posted Sun, Nov 25, 8:25 p.m. inappropriate
RE: funny stuka: Steptoe.fan,
I obviously like pricing and tolling. If I had a magic wand I'd wave it and all users of roads would be billed monthly for usage and the funds used to pay for all road construction, maintenance, and operations. That's not going to happen. Maybe some day.
WSDOT is funded through a number of different mechanisms, roughly as follows:
40% from the gas tax,
22% bond proceeds,
15% from licenses, permits, fees & the vehicle sales tax.
14% from the feds,
6% from ferry fares, and
3% from other miscellaneous sources.
Ultimately, I mainly recommending that over time we increase the amount of funding that comes from tolls and pricing to some high percentage in the mix above. That would make the percentages go down from the gas tax and from bond proceeds. I'd shoot for eventual funding from user fees in the 30% to 50% range as tolling became more prevalent and the technology improved. Obviously, there's a limit to how high tolls can go since price is inelastic for many sorts of trips, such as most commuter, business and delivery trips. On the other hand, congestion pricing will reduce discretionary trips and thus improve the flow of traffic during peak periods.
Note, I've railed about the way government spends its money and who benefits from that spending in comments about Prop 1. That's not my purpose here. Certainly, the social engineering criticism comes into play on the spending side. My point is that we should treat our transportation infrastructure more like a utility, such as water and electricity, where we charge based on total usage and peak-time usage. The gas tax is a proxy for this sort of charge, since it assumes that gas usage is proportional to actual infrastructure usage. However, that's not really true. In fact, taxing gas has a perverse effect. For example, a person who is forced to sit in traffic pays a lot more per mile in gas tax than someone driving on a little used uncongested road. So bottlenecks create congestion and increase the gas tax revenue per mile driven. From this perspective, the most cost-effective approach to funding is massive congestion so that no one goes anywhere, no one ever builds another road or bridge, and we get taxation heaven when everyone is stuck in traffic burning up gas and paying taxes on all the burned up gas! So the incentive to relieve congestion here is backwards. From the energy conservation perspective a gas tax makes sense. However, from an infrastructure perspective it's stupid because the better your infrastructure works, the less you pay for that infrastructure through the gas tax.
Posted Tue, Nov 27, 3:54 p.m. inappropriate
RE: funny stuka: You make a good point in discussing how gas taxes depend on people continuing to burn gas in order to fund projects, but i think your argument bends in the wrong direction at the very end. The risk of lost revenue due to people burning less gas on less congested roads is probably negligible. More problematic is the risk (for lack of a better term) that cars become more fuel efficient and require less gas to run. The state would have to perpetually raise gas taxes in order to counter the drop in demand.
Posted Tue, Nov 27, 4:12 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Ah, yes: Three points:
First, why would you ever want to go to the Bellevue malls? They're disgusting, overpriced, and don't sell anything you can't buy in Seattle.
Second, the idea that tolls amounts to a "roads for the rich" program is ridiculous. Tolls only affect the people who use those roads (Duh!). It's more like a roads for people who use and pay for them program...
Third, if three dollars is really going to break your back than get rid of your car and take the bus instead. Its way cheaper, there are no hidden fees, and you don't have to pay tolls.
You sound like someone who loves to get pissed off and rant against The Man but doesn't really like to think any of their opinions through before vomiting them all over the internet.