On January 5th (scroll to the bottom) the Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC), which has toll setting authority in the state, will take action on the proposed toll rates for SR-520. I would encourage our readers, and especially those of you that use SR-520 and I-90, to submit a comment to the WSTC (transc@wstc.wa.gov), including something along the lines of, “a portion of tolls revenue must be used to improve transit service”.
As transit advocates we need to make sure the WSTC, our Representatives and especially Governor Gregoire understand that transit is an integrated and vital part of our regional transportation system, and the state therefore has a currently unmet obligation to support transit. No more “foster this” and “leverage that”. Transit needs more money and as the use of tolling expands a portion of that revenue should go to support improved transit service in the corridor.
Did it!
What about the Good To Go passes? I’m signed up to the list, but haven’t heard anything.
I think I remember hearing that they will be available in the next month or so. There are going to be multiple types too.
“Transit needs more money and as the use of tolling expands a portion of that revenue should go to support improved transit service in the corridor.”
ROADS need more money! How are you going to get any transit over Lake Washingon without roads, including the floating bridges?
Where are the thousands of buses in our area going to go without roads? You want to use tolls on the bridge to pay for transit? Then what are you going to use to pay for that bridge???? Give us your plan, please.
Tolls should be used only to pay for the roads and bridges on which they are levied.
[Thread hijacking]
Use tolls, gas taxes, MVET, and other taxes and fees on motor vehicles to pay for roads and highways.
[Ot]
Our problem is not roads, it is congestion. It is too many people trying to move on too little space. Transit is the best way to move more people in less space.
So, how would you pay for the 520 bridge, Adam? Or do you think we don’t need a new 520 bridge?
[Thread hijacking]
We are both right, it just depends on the context of a corridor, land use patters, congestion, etc.
If you had said that I would respect you more, but alas you didn’t. Rather that just contracting what we say you should actually say what is true. You’re comments are stupid and pointless and a waste of everyones time.
If you care to really engage in an honest and constructive way I would love that.
And still you refuse to say how you would pay for the 520 bridge if you used some of the toll money for transit.
How would you pay for the 520 bridge? Just saying they should use some of the tolls for transit, without giving your plan for how to replace that toll revenue to pay for the bridge is just stupid.
[Ot]
oops strike the word “unless” out of this part of my reply: ” hospitals, etc unless”.
:)
But, just one more thing. Buses, and soon light rail, will be crossing the lake. Buses will be on both bridges and light rail on one. What’s so horrible about dedicating some money to moving people across these structures? I use them every day. The only difference between Norman and I is that I am able to read and have a coffee on my way to work. I share this commute with many other people every day and demand has increased for more service, but the money that I pay toward transportation in things like sales tax and property tax usually doesn’t go toward transit. Oh well, I am just a stupid transit rider who doesn’t own a hummer. Silly me.
gah! I am the typo king tonight.
Norman only in a transit nerds dream would you spend 100% of toll revenue on added transit service across SR-520.
I’m out.
I would like to see tolls on every major freeway in Seattle, including 5, 520, 90, 405, and the freeway part of SR-99. I would also like to see a state income tax. Finally, I would like to see the creation/expansion of local improvement districts, so that developers can contribute towards the cost of infrastructure that will end up bringing them higher revenue. I believe these additional funding sources would be more than sufficient to pay for both the 520 rebuild and expanded transit service.
That’s nice. Try running for a position in Olympia with that platform. Reality is that our legislators on the eastside weren’t even able to get I-90 tolling passed. One tried harder than the other but neither is really serious. Why? not enough votes.
That’s a fair point. It’s unfortunate, because a toll (even only at peak) would go a long way towards making the freeway more usable for everyone. But I guess a lot of people would rather ration their scarce resources with queueing than pricing.
If you think about it, if people prefer queueing to pricing, then we should make it illegal to complain about traffic.
Fine people a dollar every time the publicly voice the opinion that traffic congestion is a problem.
The loudest will pay the most.
And Adam has still not offered one suggestion on how to pay for the 520 bridge if some of the toll revenue is spent to subsidize transit instead of paying for the bridge.
“but the money that I pay toward transportation in things like sales tax and property tax usually doesn’t go toward transit. ”
What do you think pays for transit in our area? Metro and Sound Transit are paid for almost entirely with sales tax, with some MVET and rental car taxes going to Sound Transit, also.
No, but I have. Why not respond to my suggestions (even if it’s just to tear them apart)? Why does it matter who proposed an idea?
I wouldn’t say anything, but this isn’t the first time that you’ve complained about people not responding to your ideas when a response is sitting there right in front of you.
Unfortunately, people only prefer queueing when they’re allowed to complain about it. :)
[Ot]
[Ot]
[Ot]
[Ot]
Why?
Should it be a general principle that public revenue only on infrastructure and services related to how it was generated? Should the tax on guns only be spent on the military? Should the tax on cigarettes be given to Philip Morris?
My point is not that road spending is bad — it’s not — but that the kind of “subarea equity” you describe sets a very, very dangerous precedent. So if you truly believe that cars and roads are exceptional in this regard, I’d really like to hear a convincing argument why.
Well, then, should transit fares be spent to help buy cars? Or, should transit fares only be spent to help pay a (small) percent of the transit the fare payer is using?
Maybe we should increase transit fares to cover not only the full cost of the transit, but also pay for the roads that transit uses. Then we would not need tolls on the 520 bridge — we could just pay for it with fares from the transit users who cross the bridge.
Why should people driving across the bridge pay for someone else’s bus trip?
Who paid for you education, Norman?
That funny :=
Where’s that edit feature?
A portion of tolls revenue must be used to improve mass transit service. That’s the biggest problem in this city. No viable alternative to driving, for so many people, especially those who live outside the city and who have to commute to and from the city.
I really appreciate having these comment periods brought to my attention like this. I’d be unlikely to notice them on my own, and my hopelessly pro-transit viewpoint would go unrecorded! Thanks much.
+1 on that. Thanks, guys.
The Commission has no authority over how toll revenues are spent; for that you will need to contact your legislator. The commission is only charged with setting the rates and exemptions.
I support transit, but it’s also worth noting that the vast majority of transit service relies on roads. A more important question is how the roads will be operated, and whether the operation will give transit an advantage in traffic. The 520 project includes a lot of transit-specific improvements, including the HOV lanes, two eastside transit stations, and HOV direct access ramps at the S Kirkland P&R lot, at Montlake and connecting to the I-5 express lanes. The federal urban partnership program has funded new buses and P&R lot improvements in Kirkland and Redmond. So there’s a longer conversation needed than just an ideologically satisfying sound bite about how much money is going to highways and transit, I think.
Going points.
Good points. iPhone! How I love and hate thee.
I know, you even spelled your own name wrong. :)
Haha. iPhone fail :-(
After the last election, it seems the Transportation Commission only recommends rates and exemptions to the Legislature now, just like WSF fares.
Kirkland P&R access is a “half diamond”. It only has access too and from Seattle which is where the majority of people are going but precludes through buses from efficiently accessing this lot; meaning service sucks. Metro should sell the land and buy property adjactent to 520. They likely come out ahead on this deal. The two eastside “transit stations” don’t come close to making up for the loss of the Montlake Flyer stop. HOV access at Montlake is good and all but without incorporating the flyer stop and with the cluster @#$% that the Pacific/Montlake triangle is doomed to become even worse is a net loser (poor grammer alarm). Access to the I-5 express lanes (northbound only?) is OK but really how useful is it? Better would be a direct access to Seattle Center integrated with a real fix to the Mercer Mess (which isn’t getting any better and quite possibly worse… well, good for Paul Allen). And of course the 800# gorilla, we are repaving the Lake with another sinking bridge and (like the DBT) our Gubernor has decided to sign contracts and pay the pavers before the EIS and its public comment period is allowed to run it’s course. I feel for the person that has to take over her mess in 2012.
Here’s my elegant solution to all the revenue problems with MT, ST, DBT, 520, and HSR. It’s been vetted by distinguished scholars and Nobel winners.
[Ot]
[Thread Hijacking]
Thanks for listening!
Bridge tolls should be paid by the people who benefit from using the new facility. To achieve that, tolls should begin when the new bridge is opened, as has been the case on every other toll bridge that I can think of.
I will be retired and not commuting when the new bridge opens, so the new one benefits me naught, yet I am supposed to pay now to use this old broken-down, unsafe and congested structure? So that future commuters, the actual beneficiaries, will have a lower toll to pay?
Sorry, but this is nuts. It’s inherently unfair, and bad public policy.
It sure will benefit you, even if you’re retired. You may use it to cross the lake for shopping, entertainment, or an appointment of some kind. Your neighbors will use it to commute to work – and those paychecks will help support the social security checks you will receive and keep the businesses you will patronize running. Also, unless you’ve been commuting across the bridge since long before 1979, someone else previously payed tolls for you to enjoy the bridge for free.
In fact, tolling the bridge does the exact thing that you’re asking for, which is moving towards a user fee system. If there weren’t tolls, it would all be payed out of gas tax and other taxes which are even less connected to actual use. As it is, $750 million is coming out of state gas tax and federal funds (income tax?). I pay a portion of that even though I very rarely use, or will use, the bridge. I can’t complain though because having a bridge there is important for the regional economy in general, and thus helps me (setting aside the negative impacts of highways).
Not sure you got my point, Yorik. When I use the new bridge to go shopping, I will happily pay the toll, because I will be benefitting from the bridge’s existence, from its construction.
In the utility field, building the new bridge would be called “construction work in progress.” The law requires that these costs be paid for by utility company shareholders, and not the ratepaying customers. Utility companies are always hassling with regulators and lawmakers to let them dip into ratepayers’ pocketbooks, to get the public paying these capital costs rather than shareholders. And the regulators and lawmakers push back, for public policy reasons that mirror mine in my earlier post.
Well, besides the Federal gas tax there’s Federal Excise tax based on the weight of tires (scheduled to expire on October 1, 2011) and Heavy Highway Vehicle Use Tax. Unfortunately none of that is enough to pay for the damage that tractor trailer trucks do to the highways (although it’s better than the 0% public buses contribute). Then there’s also the subsidy to big corn on gasahol (45-cent tax credit to the refiner for every gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline and 5.2 cents per gallon exemption at the pump). And let’s not even get started on biodiesel which even Al Gore now admits was a huge mistake. So, it’s not really SOV drivers that aren’t paying their share but the trucking industry, agricultural lobby which have their hands in the cookie jar. Then there’s the car manufacturers (of which the Feds are now majority share holders in Government Motors Corp). Most excise taxes on vehicle sales have been repealed; the exception being the Luxury tax (6% on new car sales over $36,000) and gas guzzler tax which trucks and SUVs are exempt from (btw, a Subaru Outback is an SUV thanks to the auto lobby).
I am not sure why people are saying “how would you pay for the bridge”,the suggestion is to use SOME of the money from the tolling to pay for transit not all of it. The portion not used for transit could be used to pay for the bridge.
That is too nuanced for some on our trolls (Norman) to understand.