Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Re: Another Republican for the Environment

1

And the city is home to a lot more than 3 percent of the nation's jobs.

Posted by Andrew | April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
2

When you say "New York is responsible", are you talking about the tourists or the rats? or the construction workers? or the airflow from Hoboken? or the remnants of Christo's "Gates" installation from a year ago?

Posted by brandon | April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
3

Local yokel: "Yeah, but congestion pricing won't work in Seattle because we don't have mass transit. (And I'm totally against building mass transit in Seattle because Seattle is not New York.)"

Don't worry, friend. Nobody's talking about introducing congestion pricing in Seattle. Now, some tolls on some of our congested highways would be helpful -- especially, actually, for the people who currently have to drive those highways. Not to mention, when it comes to replacing 520, there's this little rule about paying for the things you plan to build. Of course, this is Seattle, so that rule only applies to mass transit.

Posted by cressona | April 23, 2007 12:06 PM
4

Too bad about the New York state Legislature. I guess Seattle's not the only city getting screwed by its state government's love of cars.

I'll say again, this could work in Seattle. It could use cameras just like in London and this proposed system in New York, with tolls charged on the ship canal bridges, the Lake Washington bridges, the bridges over the Duwamish River, northbound I-5, and half a dozen surface streets in Seattle (East Marginal Way and Airport Way near Boeing Field, and the four through streets at Henderson Street near Rainier Beach.)

It would take seventeen cameras and the administration infrastructure to bill people monthly--hardly breaking the bank. Setting it at a cost equal to bus fare, it would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year, indirectly or directly adding to funding for mass transit. It would encourage people to use mass transit.

Exceptions could be made for freight and possibly selected other vehicle-based services.

Posted by Cascadian | April 23, 2007 12:16 PM
5

#3, "Nobody's talking about...congestion pricing in Seattle."

Somebody should be, other than anonymous people on a blog.

Selective tolls would be a start, but without a network of tolls a lot of people will just choose other routes, even if they don't make financial sense. You can bet that cross-bridge tolls will be met with some people driving around the Lake, adding time to their commute and consuming more gas than the cost of the bridge tolls, just because people don't want to pay a toll. A network of tolls would prevent this irrational behavior, and it would enable the later introduction of dynamic tolling based on changes in congestion on each route.

Tolls are also needed on the Eastside, but they'll be harder to implement effectively there because of the relative lack of density and the more open geography.

Posted by Cascadian | April 23, 2007 12:26 PM
6

Cascadian, are you some freeways/sprawl supporter who's doing a grotesque caricature of a transit supporter? Because I'll tell you, you're doing a great job. You're the same one who said that a $1 increase in the federal gas tax wasn't enough; we should consider pricing gas at its true cost of $10 or $15 a gallon.

Now the Joel Connellys of the world can say how Stranger readers are buzzing about pricing gasoline beyond the reach of the middle class and banning cars from the downtown.

Really, Cascadian, if you think you're helping, you're not. Just the opposite.

Posted by cressona | April 23, 2007 12:33 PM
7

I proposed this solution back in September http://slog.thestranger.com/2006/09/toll_the_viaduct_not , but Fnarf shot it down: “Yeah, and Seattle resembles London in SO many ways: the 14 million people, the 2,000 year history, the part about being the financial center of the EU, and let's not forget the excellent comprehensive rapid transit system. Bzzt, next.”

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 23, 2007 12:41 PM
8

Ron Sims and Nick Licata have been talking about Downtown congestion pricing as something to consider during Viaduct construction.

Posted by BB | April 23, 2007 1:27 PM
9

So long as congestion pricing exempts carpools and 2 or more adults in a car, go for it.

And bus systems should be exempt.

Pricing gasoline? Nah, price parking.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 23, 2007 1:30 PM
10

There's a difference between what's necessary in the long run and what's possible now. I don't think pricing gasoline at its true cost is going to happen anytime soon, and I don't advocate it. I'm not talking about pricing gasoline beyond the reach of the middle class. I do think eventual parity with European gas prices makes sense, but that won't be possible any time soon.

I think there are better ways of gradually including the costs of driving, and tolls are a great way to do that.

I'm not talking about banning cars from downtown. I'm suggesting that the typical commuter pay $1.50 more a day to go into the city. That's really not a radical proposal. With dynamic pricing, introduced gradually, this cost would increase, but the idea would be to phase in prices to allow enough time for people to adapt, and to see the effect of existing tolls before adding more. It's likely that most of this money would directly go to roads maintenance, only indirectly freeing money for mass transit. Only the Joel Connelly's of the world would see a huge new revenue source for highways as anti-car.

Posted by Cascadian | April 23, 2007 1:32 PM
11

#9:

Exempting carpools doesn't really make sense. Carpools save money by dividing tolling costs among everyone in the car. The driver of each car would be billed, but in the case of carpools where people trade off driving, this works out in the wash, and in other cases people can just pay their part of the toll to the driver.

Exempting buses is OK with me, though even if you tolled them and passed on the cost in higher fares, the marginal cost per passenger would be so low as to barely matter. If it doesn't affect fares, there's no point in tolling anyway, as you're just passing public money from one pool to another for no reason.

I think it's important to keep the toll simple so as to streamline the administration costs, and at a certain point too many exemptions are an overcomplication.

Posted by Cascadian | April 23, 2007 1:48 PM
12

Cascadian: I do think eventual parity with European gas prices makes sense, but that won't be possible any time soon.

And that's exactly the proposal (by the likes of Tom Friedman) that you dismissed as a mere "year one" effort. A $1 increase in the federal gas tax would get the United States up to the lower ranges of European gas prices. And the upper ranges of European gas prices? How about $6 a gallon? And yet you were advocating for $10 or $15 a gallon.

Cascadian: I'm not talking about banning cars from downtown.

True, but it's all too easy to spin it that way. Why don't we focus on something we can accomplish -- like tolls on 520 -- rather than something that just makes us an easy target for the Joel Connellys out there?

Speaking of easy target, Cascadian, you also just wrote about congestion pricing in Seattle: "It would encourage people to use mass transit." Yeah, that would be nice if Seattle actually had mass transit.

Tell you what, if you really feel like you want to make a difference, go volunteer for Ralph Nader 2008 or Dennis Kucinich 2008.

Posted by cressona | April 23, 2007 1:51 PM
13

A vehicle "congestion tax" can work in New York because they have a massive transit system that most people can and do use as an alternative.

Doing that in Seattle would just piss people off. For a huge majority of people, driving is the only practical choice, since our transit system sucks ass. When and if Seattle ever develops a wide-ranging comprehensive transit system that can reliably and promptly move most people around, then you can start talking about a downtown congestion tax.

I would happily dump my car and use transit if it was a reasonable alternative. At this point in time, it is not.

Posted by SDA in SEA | April 23, 2007 2:17 PM
14

#12,

Current European gasoline prices range between $6.50 and $7.50/gallon. The US price is about $3 on average. The minimum difference is $3.50. Again, I'm not advocating a short-term extreme rise in gasoline taxes. My point in that earlier thread was that if we want to mitigate the costs of global warming, Friedman's pathetic $4/gallon gasoline idea wasn't going to work.

Back on topic, you are suggesting that any citywide tolling system is akin to voting for a presidential candidate who cannot win. The difference is that my proposal is reasonable, moderate, and achievable. I'm talking about a toll that starts at a flat rate less than 1/5th that of what is proposed for New York City. It amounts to $1.50 a day and about $375 a year per driver--far less than what many people pay for parking. It's by no means a radical proposal. In fact, it's an idea that has been broached as a possible temporary solution for viaduct construction traffic by local elected officials, though not in the detail of my still-sketchy idea.

As for Seattle not having mass transit, that's not entirely true. Our bus system could replace a large number of trips in the short term. Light rail will be in place to the airport in a couple of years, and with extra funding could be expanded to the north and east much more quickly than ST2 currently projects. Our roads will need to be maintained in the meantime, and polling shows that the public is wearying of paying for all this through sales taxes. So why not a moderate toll to defray some of these costs, and encourage more efficient commuting into the city?

Posted by Cascadian | April 23, 2007 2:17 PM
15

@11 - no, we're talking global warming.

Exempting carpools reduces global warming in many ways.

A. Each rider uses the same vehicle to move them anywhere from 75 to 100 percent of the same trip, and since their mass, requirement for heating and air conditioning, and space occupied while parking and on the road is a FRACTION of that of a SOV (one driver only), this DRAMATICALLY REDUCES global warming.

B. Using a carpool psychologically conditions you towards mass transit.

C. It upsets you.

Personally, I like C the best.

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 23, 2007 3:55 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).