Congestion Pricing
Ben says congestion pricing is a political loser in the short run, and it's a fight that transit advocates "don't need." I basically agree, but I think we need to take a step back to define our terms and parse out some of the separate arguments.
Tolling and congestion pricing (and even "pay as you drive" insurance) are mechanisms being debated right now to either (a) provide a source of transportation revenue, (b) de-incentivize SOV driving, or (c) both. Here are a few ideas that have been mooted in this area:
- Toll new bridges (e.g. the Tacoma Narrows) at a fixed rate to pay for the cost of building and maintaining the bridge
- Install HOT lanes (e.g. SR 167) to manage demand and collect revenue
- Toll new bridges/roads (e.g. SR 520) at a variable rate to pay for the cost and manage demand
- Toll existing bridges/roads (e.g. SR 520) at a variable rate to manage demand and collect revenue for an eventual replacement
- Install a transponder in every car and toll people for every mile they drive on all major highways in the region, to manage demand and collect revenue
- Do any of #2 - #5 above, but also siphon off some of the money to pay for transit projects.
I've ordered these in the order of how politically controversial they seem. #1 and #2 are so uncontroversial, they're already happening! #3 is pretty likely and #4 is less likely, but gained at least tacit support in the legislature this year. It's #5 and #6 that really get people's goats. neither of those are particularly close at hand. #5 basically exists in just two places: London and Ron Sims' brain.
#6 gets to the heart of Ben's argument. This is where the controversy would arise. But this option is a long way off, especially some version of 5+6, which, Ben's right, would create a firestorm of protest. In Olympia this session, Democrats beat back GOP efforts to explicitly ban #6, but that just leaves it open as an option, it doesn't commit us to it. And judging by Mary Haugen's email inbox, it's quite a radioactive subject.
Finally, as the gas tax money dries up, there will be increasing pressure to use toll money to pay for roads. As a result, there will almost certainly be little left over to pay for transit (except maybe HOV lanes, bike lanes, and other road improvements that also benefit transit).
So, long story short, I think we've got a ways to go, and a lot of noncontroversial and semi-controversial options to consider in the meantime.
- Frank's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I disagree about the degree to which each is likely. #3 is going to happen no questions about it. #4 has a good chance of happening especially on 520.
I think that you missed out on #4.5 or maybe it would be #3.5 (Depends on how you look at it). WSDOT has done a 405 corridor HOT lane study with the possibility of converting the HOV or HOV + 1 GP lane into HOT lanes. I think that regardless of how well the 167 HOT lanes work there will be a push to expand the system. The HOV + GP option is a good compromise because it guarantees HOV performance (the HOV system is starting to fail WSDOT benchmarks for speed and reliability) while still improving the ability of SOV drivers to get places fast when needed. As long as HOT lanes come in a package that doesn't "appear" to take GP lanes that are currently free I think that they have a good possibility.
You're right, Bejan... there is an intermediate solution where highways are split between "free" lanes and "paid, managed" lanes. Not sure how that will work out, but I'll try anything once!
I almost entirely agree with this. I wholeheartedly agree with #s 1-3, but I think tolling existing structures for replacement will be a no-go except in the case of 520. The median income of people driving over 520 is probably the highest of any large piece of infrastructure in the state, so they're most capable of handling it. We overextended our reach with partial funding for projects in the Nickel (03) and Partnership (05) packages from the Legislature - the expectations of RTID were too high, and you won't see that happen again soon.
#5 is partly what the PSRC's project was about a few years ago. A number of people really liked *seeing* a variable cost (although I believe it was fixed based on freeway/arterial/local, not congestion-adjusted), and it changed their driving habits. It wouldn't get political support, of course, but it is extremely effective to ask people to even just *view* their payment at the time of use.
#6, from the Sierra Club, is what I was really responding to. A "long way" is really long - really, really long. That sort of thing works in London because they have hundreds of subway stations. It would work in NYC for the same reason. I can only hope we have that kind of network in my lifetime. :)
Also, thanks for posting about this. I don't think I'd ever have broken things up that clearly, and it needed to be done.
Right, it's cart-before-the-horse (so to speak). The appetite for new lane miles is waning, especially here in Seattle. No need to pick a fight where one doesn't need to be picked. A positive vision of transit, not punitive, is the key.