As Eric noted below, Ron Sims is following my lead and endorsing toll roads.
Toll roads is one of those concepts that environmentalists and free marketeers should readily agree on. To the former, it's a way to discourage driving.
To the latter, it's the fairest and most efficient way to allocate capacity and finance highway construction.
The concerns about an automated tolling system that potentially facilitates surveillance are largely overblown, I think. Everybody who uses a cell phone has already capitulated on that front. And there would still have to be some method to collect (anonymous) on-the-spot cash tolls (e.g. from out-of-towners), so the paranoid few could opt out of automated tolling.
But acceptance of toll roads is only half the deal. The other half is that mass transit should similarly be financed 100% through the farebox. I'm not going to hold my breath for Sims and his allies from the Sound Transit boondoggle to embrace that one.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 02, 2007 08:42 PM | Email ThisYeah right let me know when he becomes a conservative!
Posted by: dcat on May 2, 2007 08:52 PMWe really don't need tolls - all we would need is to pay a mileage tax. Every year to renew your tabs you go to a mileage checker - then pay a per mile tax. No big brother required.
Posted by: todd sawicki on May 2, 2007 09:27 PMAnd, that makes me wonder why this massive "transportation package" is on the table. Wasn't the gas tax sold as the solution to our transportation woes? Now they need another $16 billion? And why are they throwing half of that money at light rail? Before they even finish the first project and evaluate whether it is used, how it is used, whether it solves and traffic problems, and if it is more effective than bus service?
No other state is as inefficient at building and maintaining roads. I doubt anyone in the state's DOT would ever do such a study, but I bet the citizens of the state of Washington pay more per mile of highway than the citizens of any other state. It's a disgrace.
Having said that, if more money is needed (since the other money we have given these fools has been wasted), then I agree that toll roads are the answer. AS long as they also eliminate the gas tax and any property taxes dedicated to transportation.
Posted by: BananaLand on May 2, 2007 09:50 PMBuses would move faster because the driver wouldn't have to waste time (=money) collecting fares. More people would take transit, justifying more frequent service to more places, which would increase ridership still further.
I suspect this would provide more bang for the buck -- in terms of people moved and traffic reduced -- than light rail OR more highways. And it would free up roads for the people (still the majority) for whom personal cars are still more convenient.
Just an idea....
Posted by: Bruce on May 2, 2007 09:55 PMSims may be a friendly guy who gives hugs and sings Kumbaya in key, but unfortuneately the puff piece in the paper last week about his ability to "think outside the box" and the article today points out how big a bufoon Sims really is.
Give me a break
I've been paying gas taxes, mvet, et al the last 20 years to build roads and maintain the infrastructure
But Sims "the all knowing" has chosen to squander tax payer dollars on foolish schemes, like the one that resulted in the sinking of the I-90 floating bridge in 1990.
Sims other "dirty little secret" is Sound Transit is staffed by people who couldn't cut it at King County Metro or other transit agencies
I am much more afraid of private companies abusing my private data than the government. But I agree with Stefan that neither is necessarily a show-stopper.
I agree with you that a mileage tax would be a convenient alternative, although it would be unfair for people who drive outside the state and would incent people to register their cars in other states or to tamper with their odometers. Similarly, a gas tax (beyond the one we already have) would be just as unfair for people who drive out of state, and would incent people to buy gas out of state. (It would also favor people with fuel-efficient cars, which is arguably a good thing.) We could probably deal with these problems, but we can't ignore them.
Any of these approaches makes more sense than arbitrarily tolling just those roads that happen to be built now, while keeping existing roads free because the govt had more money back then. A small toll on all roads is fairer and more efficient than a large tax on a few roads.
Posted by: Bruce on May 2, 2007 10:13 PMI gave you your answer on the Mc Dermott blog.
If you dare.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 2, 2007 10:19 PM_____________________________________
Are you kidding Bruce?
Try suing them if they lose or abuse your info.
Good luck.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 2, 2007 10:21 PMUnfortunately a few roads do cost far more than other roads. It is a lot more expensive to replace a bridge over lake washington than to a replace a surface street.
Some other reasons why tolls could be good:
1. expanding any type of capacity has significant external costs. Tolls are a more just way to pay for these external costs.
2. the costs of construction are very hard to predict. Can anyone really say what steel will be in 2 years, much less in 20? With tolls, it is much easier to adjust revenues to cost increases.
3. With tolls, we will be fully able to plan for and fund maintenance, instead of having to make tradeoffs between maintenance deferrals and new construction.
4. We would have an easier time moving to a carbon-neutral transportation system.
5. We would have a much easier way of comparing the true costs of roads, the true costs of rail, and the true costs of buses or other forms of public transportation
Mr Westneat raises the issue of fairness for the middle and lower class (or what's left of the middle class in King County). I would respond that a sales tax increase is even more regressive.
There is the potential auto drivers would want to subsidize bus travelers because then the auto drivers might actually be able to get where they are going more quickly.
However, I doubt auto drivers would want to subsidize train riders because the cost per rider will be too high compared to the cost per bus rider.
I would agree in principal but there would be more to it than that. It's not just the people who physically use the infrastructure that get the benefit from it's construction. For example, businesses downtown or in the suburbs that don't have to spend money on bigger parking lots benefit from mass transit. Businesses benefit from making it easier for customers to get to them. Property values increase or decrease based on the transportation systems nearby, etc. etc.
A hybrid of the two - taxpayer funded and tolls - likely would be the fairest way to pay for the infrastructure. If one was looking at ways to reduce traffic and encourage carpooling, as is mentioned for tolling the roads, I don't see how Stefan can suggest tolling mass transit in the same breath though (having it paid by those who use it), so I'm guessing Stefan supports the two just on the lines of the users paying for the service.
Posted by: Doug on May 2, 2007 10:52 PMhttp://www.api.org/policy/tax/stateexcise/upload/March_2007_Notes.pdf
But we are taxed 7 cents per gallon more than the average. Then again, we don't have a state income tax.
Posted by: Bruce on May 3, 2007 12:08 AMFirst...we're talking about safety. In the cases of the viaduct and 520..it was an "emergency". Okay, so the dems lied and there was no real emergency (big surprise)!, but the fact of the matter is we're still talking about safety. We don't have user fees for safety. If we did, then why not have user fees for all safety items? $1000 to make a house call for a fire team. $1000 per hour after that? No insurance, then your house burns and you can't get first aid without paying up front. How about $700 dollars to call the police? $500 for the police to stop for an accident...ect. ect. ect.
Second..if you think the cost of housing is bad now...wait until you get tolls. The closer to Seattle and Bellevue, the higher your cost exponentially. Thus making it almost impossible for new companies to locate there. An absolute business killer.
Aren't we anti business enough?
Tolls? F-NO, F-NO and F-NO!
Posted by: drw on May 3, 2007 05:36 AMThen again, we don't have a state income tax.
____________________________________________
I sure hope your not even thinking about that mess. Talk to anyone who use to live in Calif where they tax just about everything.
see what it hasn't done for them. )-:
Stefan, I don't know about the bus riders paying the full freight but certainly we should expect them to pay more of their share than they are now.
Posted by: swatter on May 3, 2007 06:56 AMIt would take a constitutional amendment to be able to put maintenance tolls on an existing road.
Posted by: Graybeard on May 3, 2007 07:40 AMAnd can't the legislature and governor suspend the constitution in the case of emergencies? (Sarcasm here)
Posted by: swatter on May 3, 2007 07:43 AM"it's the fairest and most efficient way to allocate capacity and finance highway construction"
In theory, you are correct. In actual practice, something very different occurs.
Toll roads become a business without voter checks and limits. In Texas, for example, this experiment became corrupt almost immediately. (i.e. toll roads being sold to a conglomerate from Mexico, regional committees being formed to oversee operations with no voter input and subsequent corruption, toll roads being planned that could not pay for themselves, disputes between counties on which roads would have priority, unncecessary maintainance to use up funding, etc)
The Texas legislature just sent a bill to the governor to place a 2 year moratorium on any new tolls roads. It passed with just a single "no" vote.
With all its warts, a state road commission is still the best political and financial way to build roads.
Posted by: Ken on May 3, 2007 08:17 AMThey will only encourage useless projects that are completely unnecessary like the Tunnel/Viaduct and 520.
Posted by: John Bailo on May 3, 2007 08:31 AMIn reality, the legislature will shift funding from what they used to provide for transportation into yet more increases in government and more failed social programs. The same with the gas tax. They look and see that the roads are now funded adequately and shift that tax money to pet projects. Why would tolls be any different.
Also, tolls take about 30% on average to administer. So all the tolls collected would only have about 70% results....and those would take a certain amount of funding OUT of transportation resulting in even more gridlock and more anti-business laws.
Posted by: drw on May 3, 2007 11:38 AMPeople in the Bay Area are familiar with the drawbacks of tolls, in particular traffic backups extending for miles. The bay bridge regularly backs up I80 as far as Berkeley (10 miles) for most of the day. The golden gate bridge backs up for several miles into san francisco, tying up traffic there.
Florida has big tolls, too. Even thoug hte toll scheme is a lot smart than the bay area ( big baskets to throw your toll into or electronics sensors) it still is very often simpler and quicker to take surface streets.
In Orlando, FL tolls are particularly clever. The highways from Disney World and downtown to the airport have toll gates, but there is an off ramp to a non-toll six lane surface street which parallels the highway which locals use. Of course, they *both* gridlock during peak periods (about 4/hr per day).
Of course, the real problem is we keep electing people who aren't doing their jobs. When road construction and maintinance is considered by politicians as the "third rail" rather than "so boiring", we will have good transport. Not until.
Posted by: bfr on May 3, 2007 11:52 AMi like the user pay idea in theory, but hate what i saw back east-yet another growing govt bureaucracy--state toll system workers and admin's.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 3, 2007 11:52 AMTsk.
Posted by: Dan on May 3, 2007 07:43 PMI haven't seen data on it, but I bet if we include all transportation taxes, if/when the RTID/ST2 passes, we'll be even closer to the top.
Posted by: Palouse on May 4, 2007 11:40 AMShall we try a 4th time?
She has never listened to the people of this state and never seen a tax she did not love!
Posted by: GS on May 5, 2007 04:02 PM