520 tolls start on 12/29 (Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond: low income, sales, how much)

[civic94]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

This time the toll will not end when the bridge is paid for.

yup. once the bridge is up they will have another excuse for something else. once goverments get a hold of money from a source, its hard to end it. I-90 will be the next one with tolls.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

This time the toll will not end when the bridge is paid for.

True, once it is paid off it will move to pretty much just congestion regulation, maintenance and hopefully transit.

By that time I would imagine most freeways into the city will be tolled.

[Xanathos]

Should just call it what it is: A $2000 per year tax on East side commuters who come into Seattle or Microsoft workers who go to Redmond from Seattle.

Anyone who thinks the government will use the money responsibly is nuts. Also nuts is the cost of the toll, given that the thing is already bought and paid for. To say nothing of the major damage it's going to cause to Seattle businesses given the fewer people who will now make the trek from Bellevue/Kirkland/Redmond/etc. to Seattle because of the tolls. East side businesses probably won't feel much of a pinch, since people in Seattle typically don't head out the other way. Of course, the politicians will use this "unexpected" decrease in tax revenue from that as some sort of weird justification to request higher taxes somewhere else.

The people in Seattle ramming through yet another fee for someone other than themselves under the guise that it will get them something for free at someone else's expense. They're gonna learn the hard way.

And all that talk about tolling I-90 is kind of a non-starter. There would be a decades-long battle in the courts over that if the state tried to toll a Federally funded interstate and the only means people on Mercer Island have to get off the island.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Xanathos

Should just call it what it is: A $2000 per year tax on East side commuters who come into Seattle or Microsoft workers who go to Redmond from Seattle.

You do realize that driving, by yourself, on 520, during rush hour, isn't the only way to get across the lake right?

Anyone who thinks the government will use the money responsibly is nuts. Also nuts is the cost of the toll, given that the thing is already bought and paid for.

This is help pay for the new bridge. The earlier they get the toll up, the more money they will have before construction, which means less they have to borrow, which means less money spent on interest, which means less money from the taxpayers.

And why shouldn't those people who use it more pay more?

To say nothing of the major damage it's going to cause to Seattle businesses given the fewer people who will now make the trek from Bellevue/Kirkland/Redmond/etc. to Seattle because of the tolls. East side businesses probably won't feel much of a pinch, since people in Seattle typically don't head out the other way. Of course, the politicians will use this "unexpected" decrease in tax revenue from that as some sort of weird justification to request higher taxes somewhere else. The people in Seattle ramming through yet another fee for someone other than themselves under the guise that it will get them something for free at someone else's expense. They're gonna learn the hard way.

This is WSDOT, not Seattle.

And all that talk about tolling I-90 is kind of a non-starter.

No it's not.

There would be a decades-long battle in the courts over that if the state tried to toll a Federally funded interstate and the only means people on Mercer Island have to get off the island.

There are already tolled Interstates. All it requires is Congressional Approval.

[seattlenextyear]

I-90 is tolled in New York and has been since I've been alive. There, it's called the New York State Thruway.

[Xanathos]

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

You do realize that driving, by yourself, on 520, during rush hour, isn't the only way to get across the lake right?



This is help pay for the new bridge. The earlier they get the toll up, the more money they will have before construction, which means less they have to borrow, which means less money spent on interest, which means less money from the taxpayers.

And why shouldn't those people who use it more pay more?



This is WSDOT, not Seattle.



No it's not.



There are already tolled Interstates. All it requires is Congressional Approval.

In this particular instance, it requires more than that, for the same reasons they tried to put a toll on 35 going through Austin and it fell.

As to the "why shouldn't people who use it pay more"? You use it, you just don't know it, even if you never use it. But let's explore that logic. People in Seattle who never use 520 were overwhelmingly in favor of tolling 520. But when asked the question about tolling I-5 to pay for road improvements, suddenly the opposition was in the 80% area. Hmmmm, wonder why that is? Oh wait, I know. It's the mentality people within the city itself have of having someone else pay out of pocket in order to benefit the people within the city. The old "I want someone else taxed" thing.

Personally? I don't much care about 520 tolling. I take 90 already. The added traffic will stink, but I'm allowed to use the express lanes regardless of whether I have a carpooler or not so whatever. I just find it interesting how people in Seattle are so willing to A) shoot themselves in the foot to try and score free swag at the expense of someone else and B) are so hypocritical in their stance on taxes. Seriously, let's open this discussion again in about a year after a boatload of local restaurants and businesses have closed down from the lack of patronage from East side guests.

[JC338]

Just some crunched #'s for everyone. 115,000 cars per day x $2.54 per car (averaged) = $292,000 per day. Since more people cross the bridge during peak hours, we can call this $300,000 in revenue per day. This equates out to $109.5 million generated per year, for a grand total of roughly 42 years, to raise the $4.65 billion needed for the new bridge if only toll revenue is accounted for. The problem is that our state already taxes the hell out of us in multiple other catagories (list too big) for road maintainence and construction. Hypothetical question; if those taxes pay for 50% of the project costs and the new bridge is payed for in 21 years, does anyone believe the tolls will be removed at that time. I believe not.

[civic94]

Originally Posted by JC338

Just some crunched #'s for everyone. 115,000 cars per day x $2.54 per car (averaged) = $292,000 per day. Since more people cross the bridge during peak hours, we can call this $300,000 in revenue per day. This equates out to $109.5 million generated per year, for a grand total of roughly 42 years, to raise the $4.65 billion needed for the new bridge if only toll revenue is accounted for. The problem is that our state already taxes the hell out of us in multiple other catagories (list too big) for road maintainence and construction. Hypothetical question; if those taxes pay for 50% of the project costs and the new bridge is payed for in 21 years, does anyone believe the tolls will be removed at that time. I believe not.

You also have to factor in the money needed to but the machines that takes pictures of license plates, the good to go technology, people employed to work the system, people employed to troubleshoot the system, and mailing costs to car owners.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by Xanathos

In this particular instance, it requires more than that, for the same reasons they tried to put a toll on 35 going through Austin and it fell.

What more would it be required?

As to the "why shouldn't people who use it pay more"? You use it, you just don't know it, even if you never use it.

Use it more. Reread my statement. Those who use it more should pay more. How is that controversal?

Do you think Metro and Sound Transit should be free for everyone? Or is good that those who use it more pay a bit more (via fares)?

But let's explore that logic.

What logic? All I see is a strawman.

People in Seattle who never use 520 were overwhelmingly in favor of tolling 520. But when asked the question about tolling I-5 to pay for road improvements, suddenly the opposition was in the 80% area. Hmmmm, wonder why that is? Oh wait, I know.

Where are you getting this polling data. Also I would point out that I5 doesn't have to be replaced. The 520 bridge does. Someone has to pay for that replacement. The State is kicking in a portion, but users will too.

It's the mentality people within the city itself have of having someone else pay out of pocket in order to benefit the people within the city. The old "I want someone else taxed" thing.

Personally? I don't much care about 520 tolling. I take 90 already. The added traffic will stink, but I'm allowed to use the express lanes regardless of whether I have a carpooler or not so whatever. I just find it interesting how people in Seattle are so willing to A) shoot themselves in the foot to try and score free swag at the expense of someone else and B) are so hypocritical in their stance on taxes. Seriously, let's open this discussion again in about a year after a boatload of local restaurants and businesses have closed down from the lack of patronage from East side guests.

You aren't even bothering to read what I say are you? You've got your stock rant and you are going to just keep repeating it.

Once more for those who rode the short bus:

This. isn't. Seattle's. Toll. This. is. from. WSDOT.

[Xanathos]

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

What more would it be required?



Use it more. Reread my statement. Those who use it more should pay more. How is that controversal?

Do you think Metro and Sound Transit should be free for everyone? Or is good that those who use it more pay a bit more (via fares)?



What logic? All I see is a strawman.



Where are you getting this polling data. Also I would point out that I5 doesn't have to be replaced. The 520 bridge does. Someone has to pay for that replacement. The State is kicking in a portion, but users will too.



You aren't even bothering to read what I say are you? You've got your stock rant and you are going to just keep repeating it.

Once more for those who rode the short bus:

This. isn't. Seattle's. Toll. This. is. from. WSDOT.

I've neither the time nor the inclination to respond point-by-point to the blathering, but I will simply state this: What Seattle votes, the rest of the state gets dragged into. It's long been a complaint of the vast majority of the state. So don't go "Well, this isn't Seattle's toll". Seattle is the reason that bridge was able to be tolled in the 1st place, and it'll be the reason that economy over there takes a major frickin' nosedive. The municipalities here are more dependent upon consumer spending than other parts of the country. The local businesses that have higher expenses to be in Seattle are dependent upon drawing customers from the greater region. All of the money is on the other side of the lake from you. A side of the lake which is going to be coming over significantly less. Do the math.