By
Celeste Gracey,
Sarah Jeglum,
Will Mari
February 6, 2008
Gov. Chris Gregoire proposed a six-lane rebuild of the SR 520 bridge at a press conference in December—a project that could be estimated to be no less than a 10-year, $5 billion renovation.
Legislators in Olympia say that in order to pay for the new 520 bridge, a toll will be required for bridge crossers, starting as early as next year. Toll estimates may begin at $5.66 to $8.13 one way across the bridge, but can rise up to $6.90 to $9.90 per trip by 2015.
But with negative factors ranging from costly and timely consequences to commuter inconvenience, we refuse to accept this outlandish proposal.
First, the financial and time-consuming overhaul is not worth the price of a newer, safer bridge IF heavy tolls are the primary funding method. On Jan. 29, the state House Transportation Committee hearing in Olympia estimated that the new bridge would take more than 40 years to pay for, and could cost $5 billion to complete.
After legislative and district funding, voters will have to consent to a tax increase in order to raise additional money for the road project. Even then, this idea still lacks $2.7 billion in funding. It’s unlikely taxpayers will foot such an outrageous toll as an economic recession looms.
Second, the project is too much of a burden for UW students, staff and faculty. In addition to on-campus parking and fuel prices, commuting Huskies will also face a bridge toll if the proposal is approved.
Third, traffic will play a central role among the issues facing Gregoire’s proposal. When 520 begins its proposed new toll regulations, drivers (specifically, our commuting students) may opt to use alternative routes to get to the UW, such as I-90 or Lake City Way.
Rerouting creates the problem of over-trafficking, thus resulting in increased rush hours and angry drivers, which leads us to the topic of safety.
Bridge safety is recognized as a critical concern to Washington residents, especially asfter the Minneapolis bridge collapse last summer.
We are reminded of the threat of bridge collapse in areas around Seattle, where bridges span key transportation routes.
We know we need a new bridge sooner rather than later, but the funding for it shouldn’t be based on an unfair toll.
And it shouldn’t be included with a myriad of other transit initiatives. Instead, a specific plan with a focused, short-term tax should be developed.
Let’s not toll ourselves unnecessarily.
8 Comments
#1 heather
on February 6, 2008 at 9:35 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
i agree. a 520 toll would kill the economy. i can't even afford gas or food now, and they want to tax us more? does the government in seattle not realize that most of us struggle to get by and don't have any extra money, especially to pay a toll to cross a bridge!
#2 Colin Lavassar
on February 6, 2008 at 9:46 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
The 2007 SR-520 Finance Plan submitted by the State DOT states that the pre-completion tolls on the SR-520 bridge would range from $5.83 to $6.86 for a round trip during peak commute periods. Your articles insinuates that the price for a round trip would be nearly twice this amount.
As for students and staff that have to cross this span every day the impact of this toll could be minimized. The students and staff could take a bus, avoiding the toll altogether or drive at off peak times.
Additionally, you mentioned the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis. I would like to point out that the potential for collapse in this case is minimal. The danger of the bridge sinking though is not. You should consider the fact that the bridge is not considered safe in high wind/wave conditions in your article.
#3 Jonathan Dubman
on February 6, 2008 at 10:25 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
Like it or not, a toll is required to fund a replacement bridge. And we may wish it weren't so, but the truth is that the current bridge is vulnerable to both earthquakes and windstorms, in addition to suffering from 7 hours of congestion every day. If we don't fund a replacement, we may well lose this corridor. It is that loss that would kill the economy, not a toll for single occupant vehicles that basically matches the bus fare for those who don't have a UPASS. As it stands the soonest a replacement bridge could open is 2018. That means at least ten more winters worth of windstorms.
A toll is arguably the fairest tax there is. If you use it, you help pay for it. Without a toll, other taxes would have to be raised. A toll charges users of the bridge; general taxes (e.g. sales taxes) affect a great many others who do not use the bridge, which is arguably less fair than a toll.
A toll would also have the beneficial effect of discouraging some unnecessary trips, which helps get other vehicles moving, improves transit performance and improves drive times.
There is pretty decent transit service to the UW today and dramatic improvements are being proposed. Transit will get there even faster with a toll on SR 520. It will get there faster still with HOV lanes on SR 520, and better transit connections to UW. If you have to commute from the Eastside to the UW, consider getting a UPASS, leaving your car on the Eastside, and taking the bus. That won’t kill the economy. That will save your money and the environment at the same time.
#4 Megan
on February 6, 2008 at 11:03 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I'd like to respond to the post left by Jonathan Dubman.
SR520 provides transit for a lot of things, not just individuals. Taxing individuals does not seem fair, when you consider the real diversity of drivers using the bridge.
Also, I used to use Juanita drive (the major route around the lake) to commute to the UW. I can tell you that the backups in that area are all ready 30-45 min. during peak hours, as that route is one lane each way.
Most students and staff are not going to be able to afford the poll on a daily basis, and will drive around the lake. Is it fair to back up Lakecity, Juanita, and the surrounding neighborhoods, because we need a new bridge?
Most people benefit from the bridge, including those who don't use it. We should all pay for the bridge.
A poll is most certainly not fair, and if you don't believe me I suggest you try making the route around the lake some morning around 8am and then imagine making it with twice as many cars. Then imagine that you live around Lakecity. Imagine the hassle of trying to get home on the bus with all that extra traffic. You might find that you would have been better off paying for a bridge you never use.
Finally, you talk as if we can all ride the bus. But what if you have a family? What if you can't afford to spend an extra hour on the bus just to pick up your kid from daycare. Sometimes its just not reasonable to ride the bus. We can't all afford to live 2 block from the UW.
#5 Anonymous
on February 6, 2008 at 11:16 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
To #3, I agree with everything you say. A variable toll is a very fair way to help fund the bridge replacement. Another benefit is the reduction of congestion, which would help the economy, not hurt it. The article's auther did not think through his arguments very well, in my opinion. People won't have to pay the toll if they take other modes: HOV, vanpool, transit.
#6 Hugh Jass
on February 6, 2008 at 1:58 p.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I don't have time to cite everything that's wrong with mish-mash of misinformation and blatant ignorance, but I'll do my best to hit as many highlights as possible:
1) "But with negative factors ranging from costly and timely consequences to commuter inconvenience, we refuse to accept this outlandish proposal."
Wow. Here's an earth-shattering conclusion. Mammoth improvements to aging infrastructure take time, money, and are inconvenient to everyone. You must be in college.
2) "First, the financial and time-consuming overhaul is not worth the price of a newer, safer bridge."
Here's something that may surprise you. Bridges are made out of concrete and steel. Overtime, concrete and steel do not get cheaper. Actually they become much, much more costly. 520 is scheduled to be rebuilt within the next decade...building it sooner lowers your cost. So building now IS worth it.
3) "Even then, this idea still lacks $2.7 billion in funding. It’s unlikely taxpayers will foot such an outrageous toll as an economic recession looms."
So who do you think should foot the bill for said funding gap? The effin' Trix rabbit!? Hmmm, here's a clue, the users. See Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
4) "Second, the project is too much of a burden for UW students, staff and faculty."
Gee I'm so sorry that the aging infrastructure is inconveniencing you in between bong hits and games of hacky-sack. Two words. Bus pass.
5) "...drivers (specifically, our commuting students) may opt to use alternative routes to get to the UW, such as I-90 or Lake City Way."
Tolls will be set up on I-90 and other corridors to prevent toll avoidance.
6) "Bridge safety is recognized as a critical concern to Washington residents, especially asfter the Minneapolis bridge collapse last summer."
Google bridge sufficiency ratings. Look up 520 and compare it to I-394. 520 has a lower rating than the Minneapolis bridge collapsed resulting in many preventable fatalities.
7) "We know we need a new bridge sooner rather than later, but the funding for it shouldn’t be based on an unfair toll."
There is no fairer form of taxation than user based tolls.
8) "And it shouldn’t be included with a myriad of other transit initiatives. Instead, a specific plan with a focused, short-term tax should be developed."
Who would pay the short-term tax? Non-users? Good logic.
Be honest. How much research did you do on this piece? Any at all?
#7 #7
on February 6, 2008 at 10:07 p.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
Thanks #6. It is apparent that journalism majors don't need to take math. Maybe there wouldn't have been such big tolls if Celeste and her ilk weren't successful in killing Prop. 1 (See her "editorial" 10/07). I would have been paying your way in that case.
Journalism is not about knee-jerk reacting. Please, please learn to research and think. Your simplistic and contradictory positions are a joke: "Must replace the bridge. Don't tax me (Oct 07 editorial). Don't toll me. Do something that doesn't involve taxing or tolling." Maybe you can ask your mom and dad for more money to keep you in your car. Maybe you should move to this side of the lake. It doesn't look like you will be making much money in journalism so maybe you should get used to riding the bus.
#8 DJStroky
on February 7, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
It's a shame that this whiny not thought out article was published. #6 covered most of the points here, but I'll add some more.
TRANSIT:
First off, have you guys ever heard of the U-PASS?? You can take a bus from the UW Campus to almost any part of this region FOR FREE.
Secondly, do you realize that only 30% of people commute to UW in a car (23% SOV - 7 % Carpool) according to the 2006 annual U-PASS report? 39% of people take transit to UW! Your article ignores the commuting habits of the vast majority of people on the UW Campus.
It is absurd that you ignore transit solutions to the second largest transit served region in the state.
TRAVEL BEHAVIOR:
Let me tell you a little something I learned in my travel demand forecasting class here at UW. When you raise the cost of driving, people will drive less or switch commuting modes. Lake City Way & I-90 won't get clogged to oblivion; sure they may have more traffic, but not everyone will make their trips in the first place, Bill Gates and all the Microsofties will pay the stupid toll, and others will switch to other modes. The system will balance itself out into an equilibrium eventually.
PAYING FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE:
Like every other transportation editorial in this region that I have seen, you continue to complain and whine about paying for desperately needed infrastructure upgrades.
A tax to build 70 MILES of light rail and replace 520? "WAAAAA!!! I don't wanna pay an extra $0.20 at Thai Tom for that!" Tolls to replace 520? "Wawawawa! Don't make me do it, please!"
GET A EFFING CLUE! Transportation projects don't grow out of the ground and take money to build. By continuing to postpone these critical transportation projects you are only making them more expensive. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET CHEAPER. What is your recommended alternative? Short term taxing? You would pay 5x as much each year compared to Prop 1. Are you banking on waiting until 520 sinks and the Alaskan Way Viaduct collapses to receive federal emergency funding or something?
It is time to take a (small) hit in our pocketbooks to get these projects done.
Post a comment