The Viaduct decision's next step: tolling
Tolling is not in the package so far, but most recognize that it's an essential step to funding the tunnel solution, and to solving regional congestion.
In an interview with Ross Reynolds on KUOW-FM - MP3 audio file here, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire said it was "very likely" that tolling would be applied to the new deep bored tunnel planned to replace the seismically vulnerable Alaskan Way Viaduct on State Route 99 in Seattle. At the 3:02 mark, she states:
It's very likely that we will toll. Any mega-project that we do today is having to be tolled because historically we had so much federal money coming in (but) we no longer do...
Reflecting a viewpoint similar to Gregoire's, State Sen. Ed Murray told The Seattle Times about the tunnel funding mix: "There has to be tolling. In any megaproject there is going to have to be tolling...There is no other way to move forward on megaprojects if we don't."
That's an on-target assessment, consistent with the strong support the Governor, some legislators, and the state transportation department have already shown for tolling current and planned projects. Electronic time-variable tolling is on the Legislature's agenda this session to help fund replacement of the wind- and earthquake-prone State Route 520 floating bridge across Lake Washington, and that plan could include tolling of the parallel Interstate 90 bridge. A federal Urban Partnerships grant of $138 million for the 520 bridge replacement, with millions more attached for regional transit projects, is conditioned on legislative approval by September 30, 2009 of tolling the bridge.
A recent poll by the state's 520 Tolling Implementation Committee showed significant public support for time-variable electronic tolling on the SR 520 and I-90 bridges, and for starting tolling on the old 520 bridge in 2010. For polling results, see p. 17 of the committee's Draft Tolling Report to the state Legislature, released earlier this month.
Electronic time-variable tolling is already underway on State Route 167 in south King County, and electronic and booth tolling are in place on the new southbound span of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Gov. Gregoire has helped build support for electronic tolling on the planned new I-5 span across the Columbia River connecting Washington and Oregon, as a funding and peak-hour traffic management tool.
So, electronic tolling, and time-variable tolls, are on their way to gaining a foothold in Central Puget Sound, and in a major bi-state bridge project. And that approach for the deep bored tunnel on SR 99 (the Viaduct route) makes sense in terms of funding and public policy. The expected cost of the single-bored, 54-feet diameter, two-level tunnel to go deep under Seattle's First Avenue for two miles is currently pegged at $1.9 billion by the Washington Department of Transportation, though it could be less in the end. (The 14th slide in this WSDOT presentation of 12/16/08 indicated the cost for the single-bored SR 99 inland bypass tunnel could be as low as $961 million. More clarity on costs for all project elements will develop as engineering progresses.)
But for now, additional transit and infrastructure projects for the key north-south travel corridor bring the total package's estimated cost to $4.25 billion. The City of Seattle, King County, and Port of Seattle are slated to supply the balance of funding beyond the state's $2.8 billion, pledged by the Legislature for Viaduct replacement work. (More in this WSDOT deep bored tunnel project overview: the page 3 chart details who intends to pay for what).
However, $400 million of that $2.8 billion was shifted to the SR 520 bridge replacement project by lawmakers impatient with this second-time-around Viaduct replacement decision process. It could be yanked back to SR 99, but the crucial, costly SR 520 endeavor needs all the help it can get. Unless the money turns up in a turnip patch somewhere, or is re-allocated to SR 99, the state's $400 million funding gap for Viaduct replacement on SR 99 needs to be filled. It's a real concern to some State Senate Democrats, as the Tacoma News Tribune's Joe Turner reports. Electronic time-variable tolling of the deep bored tunnel, with transit and ride-share vehicles traveling free, would help close the gap. On his blog, State Rep. Ross Hunter, an Eastside Democrat, says he likes the tunnel as long as it's tolled, and really gets built.
Under any circumstances, tolling the tunnel is a smart move policy-wise. In a concession to cost constraints and environmental concerns, it will only be four lanes, not the current six of the Viaduct. But with added transit service (including an up to 25 percent countywide increase in King County Metro bus hours funded by a 1 percent car license tab tax), a four-lane tunnel can prove workable, especially if there are toll pricing incentives to discourage overcrowding during morning and evening rush hours. Usually, it is only at those times and before and after professional sporting events at the First Avenue stadiums that the Viaduct comes anywhere near capacity.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Tue, Jan 20, 7:12 a.m. inappropriate
HOLD YOUR HORSES!
Just because the announcement of the "collaboration of "3" polititians has recommended a Tunnel, doesn't mean it's a done deal. Not by a long shot.
The messy but important process of legislative decision-making is yet to begin. It is likely that those legislators, who hold control of the purse strings, will come up with their own solution. And, as the dust keeps settling on the Tunnel idea, the more the Legislature will want another solution.
TOLLING DOES NOT NEED TO BE PART OF THE VIADUCT SOLUTION.
In fact, if the Legislature chooses to go back to the Retrofit solution, which will cost less than $1 billion, not only will there be NO tolling, but the surplus funds can be shifted to the 520 Bridge replacement, thus reducing, or eliminating the need for tolling there.
The Retrofit does all that the Tunnel will achieve and more.
LESS MONEY and CONTINUES TO USE A CORRIDOR THAT KEEPS OUR BELOVED PANORAMIC VIEW for ALL people and can be a better neighbor to the central waterfront by reducing noise, and adding urban design improvements.
So, DONT COUNT YOUR CHICKENS yet! It ain't over till it's over!
Art
Posted Tue, Jan 20, 11:24 a.m. inappropriate
Most world class cities have bypass routes that allow traffic to flow around or through a city without adding to congestion. If the capacity is sufficient then there is no need to sort out who is passing through and who is not…it’s decided by individual drivers. The viaduct now serves this purpose for Seattle. It should be rebuilt utilizing the existing configuration along with provisions for efficiency, aesthetics, noise abatement, pedestrians and bikes.
To suggest any solution with less capacity than the current structure because you think you can cherry pick commuters and assign them to as yet un-built modes is irresponsible. And you can’t pretend that if you suppress travel by imposing tolls that commuters just disappear at strategic times during a commute.
The features and benefits of a retrofit or rebuild of the Viaduct have been consistently shouted down by special interests, mostly developers who want to build townhouses, sell them and leave town. So much for the hundred years vision.
I think if the Discovery Institute’s Cascadia team would just use that hotline they appear to have had when they created their “Intelligent Design” theories they would be told by the Almighty to, “Stop screwing around and rebuild the Viaduct.”
Amen
Posted Tue, Jan 20, 8:49 p.m. inappropriate
I personally like tolls over other forms of taxation user pays.Having said this i agree why not just rebuild the viaduct it only became an eyesore after we are told it needs to be replaced.Most of the time i could careless about what happens in Seattle but this time i'm asked to help pay for something i never use so naturally i prefer a less costly solution.There used to be a time when i enjoyed coming to Seattle but having been a victim of crime twice in a row i have no desire to go there anymore so my chances of driving in this tunnel would be slim at best.
Posted Fri, Jan 23, 7:26 a.m. inappropriate
The legislature has a tolling policy for the state. It basically says that only the legislature can authorize tolls on state highways. The law also says the legislature must vote on toll rates set by the state Transportation Commission.
People who advocate breezy "let's toll every major route" ideas without telling us how much it would cost us, aren't doing us any favors.
Before we start promoting "toll everything" ideas, let's see the data on the costs, and understand the purpose and what we get for our money.
SR 520 will be a good test case.
(There is an important difference in the variable tolls being proposed on SR 520 and those in place on SR 167. The SR 167 vary by levels of traffic to keep the HOT lane functional for toll payers, HOV and transit. The tolls on SR 520 would be set by time of day, so people will always know what the toll rate at each time of day before they get there. I understand 520 will have no toll booths, completely electronic toll collection from a sticker on your car with other ways to collect the tolls from people who don't have stickers.)