The 520 tolling commission says we should only toll the bridge, not the approach roads. While somewhat disappointing, this is unsurprising, considering the neighborhoods on either side seem to have incredible amounts of political clout, and don’t want to see traffic increase in their neighborhood. What’s specifically disappointing is that the committee is using the wrong metric:
"State staffers and consultants estimated that charging tolls beyond the ends of the bridge would raise just 7 percent more in toll revenue. "I don’t think we receive a lot of money (considering) the consternation costs," Hammond said."
The increase in toll revenue has never been the issue. It’s about using tolls to manage demand, especially West of I-405. As it sits, the commission’s recommendation rates a 1 out of 6 on the old congestion pricing aggressiveness scale.
On the plus side, it looks like we’ll need to toll I-90 to hit the $2B revenue target, so that’s a start.
They’d likely have to toll both bridges anyway, if you can trust people’s responses to a recent poll. Apparently about a half of 520 drivers would switch to 90 if it wasn’t tolled. On the other hand their behavior might be quite a bit different once 90’s bumper to bumper and the tolled 520 is empty.
I read the whole report and don’t come away with the same conclusion as the PI article at all. What I got out of it was tolling SR520 would only in the most rosey of scenarios raise enough money to meet the legislatures goals. Tolling only the Evergreen Point bridge also causes the most grief with respect to traffic overflow on alternate routes. Opposition to tolling I90 comes primarily from residents of Mercer Island but largely disappears if two conditions are met. One, they want a “free” option in both directions and two they want money raised from I90 tolls to go specifically to the I90 corridor. The most logical conclusion I can draw from the report, what I read it as recommending, is to use automated tolling (the old toll booth was dismissed out of hand because of the expense and congestion it would cause), toll SR520 at variable rate, implement HOT lanes on the I90 bridge.
The idea of revenue going to a specific target is a bit of a red herring, sort of like the Social Security “Lock Box”. It used to be the law in this State that tolls could only be charged on a bridge after it was completed to pay off debt incurred to build that bridge. That’s why tolls on the Evergreen Point Bridge were removed much sooner than expected; the debt was paid off. As it sits now there is no dedicated account for different projects and budget line items are adjusted constantly. Proposed funding for SR520 has already been earmarked as part of the package to pay for East LINK. Federal funds which the State only gets if it starts tolling now are touted as going toward paying for a new bridge but a big chunk of it would go to passenger only ferries to Vashon Island. The reason the estimated cost for the SR520 replacement “bridge” has inflated to $6 billion is because of mission creep. Wetlands protection and such are mandated by law but building parks on lids over the roadway are not.
I’m not sure what roads you are referring to when you suggest tolling other than on the bridge deck. There was a vague reference to a toll or HOT lane on I405. I’ve wondered what the legal issues would be on placing a toll on a federal highway. Can you do that?? If so I’d suggest the “Express” lanes on I5 as a perfect place to start. I chuckle every time I hear a traffic reporter telling you if it’s faster to take the “Express” lanes or the mainline. Nobody has to use the express lanes and in fact it’s often slower. Imagine if they were HOT lanes and pricing was adjusted to maintain a speed limit commute. Do you think bus ridership would be in higher demand?
Good points, Bernie. The roads I was referring to are the approach roads to 520 in both directions. Some scenarios called for putting the toll plazas just west of the 405 interchange, so that people entering from Kirkland and exiting before the bridge would also have to pay a toll. that’s what some Eastside residents object to.