Tolling 520

Posted by Clark Williams-Derry

01/11/2008 09:45 PM

Gregoire endorses tolls over taxes for fixing roads.

Drivers who cross the Highway 520 floating bridge would pay a toll as soon as next year under Gov. Christine Gregoire's financing plan to replace the aging span.

The state also should consider a toll on the Interstate 90 bridge to raise additional cash, Gregoire said Thursday, in releasing the 520 proposal...The finance plan assumes a round-trip toll of $6 to $7 during heavy commute hours, starting next year.

My only comment here: a toll of $6 to $7 bucks might seem unfair. But -- and this is important -- it's probably what it actually costs to drive across the 520 bridge.

That is, if you include all the costs when a car crosses that bridge -- wear and tear on the road, maintenance, depreciation of the old facility, construction costs of the new facility, plus the pollution, noise, and congestion costs of a car trip -- then a single trip across 520 at peak hours probably costs about as much as a cappuccino.

And making the drivers themselves pay those costs, rather than passing them off to all taxpayers, is only fair. After all, I don't expect taxpayers to pay for my coffee; so why should drivers expect other taxpayers to pay for their car trips?

Permalink

Comments

Posted by grandsalami 01/11/2008 11:14 PM

"After all, I don't expect taxpayers to pay for my coffee; so why should drivers expect other taxpayers to pay for their car trips?"

Well...I am not opposed to tolls, but this rationalization is just insane. To equate a luxury like caffeine (complete luxury) with transportation (some necessary, some not) is just not fair.

For instance, I don't have kids, so should I bitch that I shouldn't be paying for other kids education? NO! Education is necessary and everyone should have access to it and everyone should pay for it - the same is true for transportation. And some (a lot of) people have to drive, so I believe it is necessary to have public supported roads (and transit). Would it be better if we had denser communities, more transit, less sprawal, etc? Yes, but we are not there yet, and not everyone can afford to live AND work in the same area (plus our regional transit is only so-so at best) and are going to have to drive. Why punish them, when it is really the fault of everybody for not dealing with this issue earlier (we all knew the issues would have to be dealt with eventually).

Posted by morrison_jay 01/12/2008 05:20 AM

Clark Williams-Derry wrote:
And making the drivers themselves pay those costs, rather than passing them off to all taxpayers, is only fair. After all, I don't expect taxpayers to pay for my coffee; so why should drivers expect other taxpayers to pay for their car trips?

By that logic, there would no longer be any taxpayer money for light rail or bus system or public education.

Frankly, public taxes are for projects that benefit the public good which the private sector either cannot or will not accomplish.

There is no problem with user fees to offset part of the cost, but roads and bridges are generally accepted as the responsibility of government, just like education and mass transit.

Posted by Matt the Engineer 01/12/2008 08:51 AM

Driving isn't necessary - it's all about choices. Comparing spending time stuck in traffic to education is just not fair. Adding in the true cost of driving long distances every day will tend to change behaviors - not make poor workers starve.

Plus I'm just not imagining the average person commuting from Bellevue to Seattle as those that need welfare.

Posted by andrew 01/12/2008 09:15 AM

This is only fair if viable alternatives are provided, or this money goes directly towards building those viable alternatives.

This could be light rail, but I expect that some sort of bus rapid transit system would be cheaper, more efficient, and faster. However, it would be less sexy.

Posted by eldan 01/12/2008 11:01 AM

We have viable alternatives already. Anyone who needs to get across the 520 bridge can do so by bus. If they live further East than the buses go, they just need to use a Park & Ride, of which the Eastside has many. People choose the luxury of driving because they find it more convenient, which is fine but I don't see how this can be branded a necessity in the same way as "getting across the bridge by any means", so I don't see why anyone should object to paying for it.

Posted by morrison_jay 01/12/2008 05:14 PM

andrew wrote:
This is only fair if viable alternatives are provided, or this money goes directly towards building those viable alternatives.

The stated purpose of the toll is to finance replacement of the bridge. That is fine, but as so often happens with these things, even after the costs are paid for the government continues to collect the toll and redirects it for other things.

There are bridges in New York that have been paid for 50x over. Well above and beyond any replacement or maintenance costs.

It is far more staightforward to simply pay for these things with the gasoline tax, which is typically devoted towards road and bridge projects. If more money is needed for bridges in general (including 520) then the more fair way to pay for it (and all roads and bridges) is to raise the gasoline tax.

This has a proportional effect on all users. SUV drivers pay a bit more because they use mroe gasoline. But they also do more damage because of their higher weight.

Charging tolls only for 520 is unfair. What about all of the other bridges in the state that are built or repaired, but receive no tolls to recover costs? Just raise the gas tax for everyone and earmark all money for these purposes.

Posted by Matt the Engineer 01/13/2008 12:35 PM

That may be true for New York, but the last time they tolled 520 they removed the toll after it was complete.

I have nothing against increasing the gas tax, but I don't see any reason not to toll. With regard to other bridges - I'm ok with tolling them as well when they need replacement. The last bridge I know of that was built in this state was the Tacoma Narrows - and that has a toll.

Posted by morrison_jay 01/13/2008 04:27 PM

Matt, those are good points. I think we would all trust the toll if there was an established expiration date that came with it. Then there would be confidence that the funds are going for a specific purpose as opposed to being diverted. But all money is fungible. There is state general revenue tax money for bridges, but instead of coming to King County for 520, it will be diverted elsewhere because of the toll. The end result is an unfair distribution of the tax burden on King County residents.

Posted by Clark Williams-Derry 01/14/2008 11:36 AM

Jay -
I guess you're right: roads and bridges are "generally accepted as the responsibility of government." Though I'd argue that that's precisely the problem: we've come to expect that the government will provide major road & bridge services free of charge, even though different people, paying the same taxes, use *vastly* different amounts of those services. And it seems to me that someone who crosses 520 in rush hour is using more government services, and imposing far greater costs on others, than someone who's made different commuting or living choices.

Of course, I hesitated to write this post this way, since as you point out there is a parallel to other government services, such as education. Obviously, a family that sends 8 kids to public schools uses more education services than a family with 1 kid (or none) in public school. But school taxes are determined by property values, not family size.

That said, I'd want to make a distinction here: good public education has HUGE positive externalities: narrowly, on property values; more broadly, on the economy overall; and even more broadly, on the very definition of what it means for all of us to live together and participate in a common society. It's virtually always good for EVERYONE if we provide quality education to ANYONE.

That's not true about commuting or driving. Transportation does have some positive externalities, but it has far larger negative ones: pollution, congestion, construction costs, traffic fatalities, etc. I'd argue that we do very little net good, and quite a bit of harm, by allowing people to shift the cost of their transportation choices onto other taxpayers. Plus, technologies have advanced to the point that tolling is a pretty efficient way of internalizing costs -- reducing the administrative efficiency advantage of the gas tax.

Posted by morrison_jay 01/14/2008 03:15 PM

Clark Williams-Derry, we have summed up the classic debate between tolls and gas taxes right here. There are pros and cons to financing via either method.

For education, how about a $6 or $7 per day, per kid, charge for attending public schools? That is still cheaper than day care or jail cells. And think of the the first class education they would get with all of those extra education toll resources.

Posted by Arie v. 01/14/2008 09:52 PM

The problem here is that every car trip, whether across 520 or not, is subsidized by the taxpayer. Tolling 520 is a good idea in theory, it will reduce congestion, promote mass transit and help fund the bridge.

However, then eastside tech employers will fund employee trips, the wealthy won't care about tolls and soon 520 will become a "Lexus" lane.

Then we'd have a backlash that could set reasonable roads and transit policy back decades. Tread carefully here, unintended consequences and such.

Posted by morrison_jay 01/15/2008 04:47 AM

Arie makes a good point. A large toll like that would be a huge regressive tax on the poor. The Lexus driver won't think twice as his account is billed for his monthly tolls. But the guy driving the 1997 Honda Civic with (150,000 miles on it) is going to be hurt a lot.

The wealthy get less congestion and a new bridge.

The working poor get forced to wait for the next bus because they can no longer afford to drive to work.

Posted by RMC 01/15/2008 10:26 AM

To Jay and Arie, both of your points are well made and understood. However, your arguments are moot. The voters rejected a 9 cent gas tax hike in 2003, and in 2007, Prop 1 went down to defeat at the polls.

One thing that the Prop 1 supporters argued was that if Prop 1 went down, measures (like tolling and congestion pricing) would have to be implemented. Whatever one thinks about those measures, one must concede a high likelihood of backlash. However, we sleep in the bed that we make, so I'm not at all surprised that tolls are coming.

I'm hoping that I see the transit half of Prop 1 in modified form on the ballot in October of this year, so that I can vote to throw transportation dollars at a long-term, sustainable solution. But for now, we have a bridge to replace.

If, as you say, the tolls will pay for the replacement 50X over, then I hope WSDOT places dedicated lanes for transit on the bridge, and then uses the surplus to improve transit across the bridge. That way, the fate of "waiting for the next bus" will not be as damming as you believe.

Posted by Clark Williams-Derry 01/16/2008 08:13 PM

Jay - I'm a little confused about why people think tolls are regressive, but the gas tax isn't.

The very lowest decile doesn't use much gas, since they don't have cars; they don't pay in either case. Outside of that, energy service costs (including gas spending) are far more regressive than most other categories of personal spending. So it's not a matter of replacing a progressive or flat tax for a regressive toll; at worst, it's trading 2 different kinds of regressive financing structures.

Though it may be that tolls are more progressive than taxes. First, many low-income folks will be able to avoid some tolls, simply by avoiding expensive routes. Plus, more importantly, ot may be possible to use tolling revenue to improve transit service, giving low-income folks another (cheaper) way across the lake. You can't do that with the gas tax: it's actually unconstitutional in Washington to use gas tax revenue for anything but roads, bridges, and ferries; transit just doesn't count.

Posted by morrison_jay 01/18/2008 08:40 AM

It would seem to me that the wealthy are more likely to use the most gas guzzling vehicles. The BMW, the Mercedes, the sports car, etc. Most lower incomes typically drive the more efficient vehicles like the Ford Focus or the Honda Civic. I am sure there are exceptions, but this would seem like the typical trend.

So wouldn't the gas tax typically be progressive since the higher consumers of gasoline are paying most of the tax? It also would appear the be the most efficient way to assign costs based on weight. Weight of vehicles plays a large part in damage to roads and bridges. The heavier vehicles consume more gas/diesel, and those same heavier vehicles pay more of the over gas taxes based on consumption.

In my opinion, a toll is more regressive because it is not balanced. The 1995 Honda civic pays the same toll rate at the 2008 BMW 7 series. But from the standpoint of the gasoline tax, the BMW 7 series pays 2x or 3x more per mile.

A wealthy person can go buy a Toyota Prius and blow that regressive/progressive math to pieces.

It just seems to me that the gas tax is the best way to spread the burden in a fair way to all of the road/bridge users across the state.

And the stated purpose of the toll (per the Gov) is to replace the bridge, not to use it for transit.

Posted by KelseyJC 01/18/2008 03:17 PM

At first glance it makes sense for "those who use it to pay for it"-- but it is always the poor that bear the brunt of tolls. The rich will eat the cost, and continue to drive from their expensive homes to their high-paying jobs. People with already strained budgets won't be able to pay...

Not only that, but shouldn't we all already know that public transit is worst for the people who need it most? If you were a poor person living in a low-income Kent apartment who worked in Seattle, you might understand. The poor have the longest commutes with the most transfers on public transportation. The toll hurts them most.

Posted by revjessecard 01/18/2008 03:28 PM

I cannot believe the level of comments against the toll. The toll was proposed at that level to both replace the bridge, give another exit near UW, add HOV lanes, a light rail, and a possible bike route.
If it's adding all those amenities, I'm for it. If, as the Gov has added lately, it would just add more lanes, I'm not.
However, I don't own a car and I'd only take a bike or bus across anyway. You can avoid the tolls if you use transit anyhow.
As to this toll going on forever: It won't. Just like the last one didn't. It paid for its cost. Tolls are a good thing. They reduce traffic, make the costs realistic and are fair to the user.
The tolled roads out east that generally keep tolling are oftentimes the ones that have been privatized.

Posted by Arie v. 01/18/2008 05:02 PM

I should add that I'm all for 520 tolling as most of us are. However, I remember what if feels like to have to scrape by. You tell the guy making $12 an hour that he's just lost an hour a day of pay due to tolls, but that it's all for the greater good. Or you can ask him to bus it and potentially lose time that way.

I say we support the tolls, but do so in a compassionate way and acknowledge that there are bound to be inequities with any change like this. Let's think hard about the messaging such that we don't come off as insensitive elites. The "I don't expect you to pay for my coffee, so don't expect me to pay for your commute" argument works for argument sake here, but I wouldn't want to campaign that way.

Posted by morrison_jay 01/19/2008 07:22 AM

I am all for more transit, bike lanes and other options. I just have a different point of view on the fair way to pay for them. Tolls don't make much sense to me from the standpoint of fair tax burden. The poor seem to get the worst end of that stick. With the gas tax (or other broad based taxes) the burden appears to be more appropriately distributed.

Posted by Morgan Ahouse 01/19/2008 04:43 PM

The gas tax is a political non-starter right now, though in principle (like tax shifting or an income tax) I think it's great.

Tolling has one big advantage over a tax -> variable pricing that affords system management to maximize peak carrying capacity. Tolling also allows a messaging opportunity unavailable to a tax -> sub area equity. Unlike a fuel tax, we can restrict tolling revenues to a defined set of purposes that would be primarily limited to the corridor. Such a proposal is far more palatable in many places than a fuel tax. Tolling will also suppress demand such that the bridge need not be designed to carry so many vehicles as otherwise.

Fairness & Regressivity – we need to work through the ethics as well as the messaging. Some argue that a vehicular system of transportation posses barriers of entry to the bottom deciles that include vehicle purchase, insurance and repairs, rendering such a system more regressive than mass transit. I think that an important question to resolve is whether bolstering alternative modes within the 520 corridor is itself a progressive move and if financing such a move via tolling justifies the outcome. One way to achieve greater equity is to redefine the 520 corridor beyond the highway itself to include feeder systems like local busses, walkability and bikability in adjacent neighborhoods.

At the moment, I doubt that the gov is going to talk about tolling doing more than paying for essential work until demonstrable public support stings her behind.

Posted by Arie v. 01/20/2008 08:04 PM

There's fairness, then there's perceived fairness. The guy making $12 an hour and crossing 520 today is not likely to understand how much better off he would be if he gave up his 1990's truck and took the bus - though he likely would be.

If we are willing to commit as a region to bolster alternative modes of transportation with buses, walkable hubs (that incluce affordable housing), etc then maybe we can make the sell. Right now I agree that it's not likely to happen. We are not yet the Dutch nor the Japanese.