520 Tolls, I-90 Tolls (Seattle, Bellevue: home, depreciation, casinos)

[509]

Yes, but tolls need to be based on user pays....AND the money needs to be collected and distributed efficiently.

Paying individual bridge tolls is a pain.....I remember when Spokane was paying off the Monroe Street bridge and throwing a DIME into the toll box. I was so glad when they removed THAT toll booth.

The roads in tri-cities are smooth just because they are brand new....I remember those smooth Spokane roads thirty years ago!!! I believe the FEDS payed for those roads.

Hell, the state of Washington did NOT want to pay their share of I-90 east of Moses Lake!!

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by mkarch

Let's face it, the current system of 'free roads' isn't working. It's very difficult to cross the metro area many hours of the day and there's no viable alternative short of using a helicopter. Tolls won't solve the problem entirely, but they'll improve it in a way that ties the cost of use to the people using them. I certainly don't think lowering the cost of driving is the best or most efficient social welfare scheme to help the poor.

^ this

[sean98125]

"Tolls won't solve the problem entirely, but they'll improve it in a way that ties the cost of use to the people using them."

We should be thinking the same way about public transportation

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by sean98125

"Tolls won't solve the problem entirely, but they'll improve it in a way that ties the cost of use to the people using them."

We should be thinking the same way about public transportation

In developed countries, there are only a tiny fraction of public transportation systems that turn a profit. It's truly miniscule. This isn't an American problem.

The cost of labor, even if one was to cut the salary of drivers by half, would still be too high. The benefit of reducing congestion, increasing mobility, and reducing pollution, is worth the cost of providing the service.

If fares are raised to the break-even point, many more will choose to drive, making congestion exceptionally worse. (price elasticity). And the costs of congestion (environmental and productivity costs) increase exponentially as each car is added.

Profit is not, nor should it be, the goal of large metropolitan public transportation systems.

[Jalhop]

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

Profit is not, nor should it be, the goal of large metropolitan public transportation systems.

There's plenty of profit for the construction companies, and jobs with nice pensions for the gov't employees. I think these motivations drives many decisions. It's why we'll have a multi-$billion tunnel for light rail instead of a cheaper monorail, for example.

[HandsUpThumbsDown]

Originally Posted by Jalhop

It's why we'll have a multi-$billion tunnel for light rail instead of a cheaper monorail, for example.

I don't think that's accurate; it's rather simplistic and dismissive of the planning process (and operating costs) for these types of projects. It's better to build something that will be useful 50 years from now than go cheap on the captial expenses.

[limeyx]

Originally Posted by jjinla

And as I read, the 90 toll would be used to pay down the 520 one. How is that any more fair than just upping the gas tax? You are taxing a group of people that receive limited benefit from it either way.

It's not fairer at all, it's just way easier to get a "fee/toll" approved than increasing a tax ....

[RunTheDistance476]

Again,

I think everyone should pay tax for the new 520, it benefits the entire region and everyone in it (both directly and indirectly).

[mkarch]

Originally Posted by wlw2009

Again,

I think everyone should pay tax for the new 520, it benefits the entire region and everyone in it (both directly and indirectly).

You weren't living here during the ill-fated Monorail Initiative. I believe one of the reasons it failed to maintain public support is because the funding was poorly tied to the project benefits. (Recap - the largest tax burden fell on new car owners regardless of where they lived in the city or would use the line).

520 is a route used by primarily by east west commuters living in north end neighborhoods. I only use it a few times a year, and don't see a whole lot of indirect benefit from it currently. The same is true for the majority of people that would be paying for it through a general tax. Having everyone pay for projects used by a few people is a good way to make sure few projects actually get funded.

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown

In developed countries, there are only a tiny fraction of public transportation systems that turn a profit. It's truly miniscule. This isn't an American problem.

The cost of labor, even if one was to cut the salary of drivers by half, would still be too high. The benefit of reducing congestion, increasing mobility, and reducing pollution, is worth the cost of providing the service.

If fares are raised to the break-even point, many more will choose to drive, making congestion exceptionally worse. (price elasticity). And the costs of congestion (environmental and productivity costs) increase exponentially as each car is added.

Profit is not, nor should it be, the goal of large metropolitan public transportation systems.

People who commute in their cars, business people, and truck drivers all benefit from public transportation, because of the reduction in traffic. Bad as is is now, it would be far worse without those people taking the bus or trains. I don't have a problem with gas tax, property tax, or even tolls going to Metro and Sound Transit. I do object to tolls on one road/bridge to pay for another to be built.