Drastically Different

By Morning Fizz, Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 5:40 AM
View Comments

fizz

1. Adam Parast at the Seattle Transit Blog reports on two studies of tolling on the proposed Alaskan Way tunnel from 2002 and 2008 that produced drastically different estimates of how much money tolling could produce to cover tunnel construction.

The 2002 study looked at how much drivers would be willing to pay to use the cut-and-cover tunnel (which, unlike the deep-bore tunnel, would have had exits downtown). It found that drivers would pay between 16 and 31 cents, producing between $35 million and $95 million for construction costs. The 2008 study, in contrast, set predetermined rates between $1.10 and $2.25, depending on time of day, and found that tolls could produce up to $330 million for construction costs—a four-to-ten-fold increase over the previous estimate.

WSDOT attributes the elevated estimates to “different methodology.” That’s true, but the new estimates also show that the agency is significantly over-pricing its toll estimates to produce the revenues it needs to pay for the tunnel. And, as Parast points out, higher tolls cause people to take other routes (or choose not to drive or to drive at different times)  According to WSDOT’s own estimates, about 40 percent of traffic will disappear if toll rates are set that high. So it’s unlikely the state will reap that kind of money from tolling in the first place.

In other words, like its tunnel cost estimates, WSDOT’s tolling numbers appear tailored to make the tunnel look feasible.

2. Enough wonkery; back to the election! King County Executive candidate Susan Hutchison has consistently said she doesn’t belong to any political party (despite a long history of donating to Republicans).

So why is she holding three phone banking events this week at the headquarters of the King County Republican Party?

3. Nick Licata opponent Jessie Israel, who has about $54,000 on hand, is trying to raise another $15,000 before election day to get a last-minute campaign commercial (viewable here) on the air.

Licata, whose biggest campaign expenditure so far was a goofy “newspaper” called the Seattle Planet (lead story: Licata arrested for riding his bike in the Fremont Solstice Parade wearing clothes), doesn’t seem likely to respond in kind: He only has about $16,000 in the bank.

4. Two cool events tonight, one for campaign junkies, one for the campaign-weary.

At 4:00, Futurewise, the Transportation Choices Coalition, and other groups will host a happy-hour at Pike Brewing Co. (1415 First Ave.) to unveil a new publication responding to questions around last year’s failed transit-oriented communities bill, which would have increased density around light-rail stops. The happy hour will be followed by a 6:00 reception at AIA Seattle (1911 First Ave.).

Legislators are expected to come back with a revamped version of the bill next year.

Also at 6:00, CityClub and Seattle Works are hosting a “Speed Candi-Dating” event at Rainier Square (1333 Fifth Ave., Third Floor) where you can meet the candidates and ask them questions one-on-one. Tickets for that one are $15.

This morning’s Morning Fizz is brought to you by Kay Smith-Blum for School Board.

ksb_300x2501

  • Michael M.
    @35

    Ugh...I can't stand streetcars, as a general rule. However, I could definitely see the benefit of having a streetcar running up and down Third Avenue, sharing a lane with buses.

    Realistically, I think we need to look at what our plans our for what each service should be providing.

    I originally liked the Monorail, because it was elevated, and connected two neighborhoods with downtown that have shit connections. However, monorail has limits to how it can be expanded, and can't run at grade, while light rail and streetcars can.

    I think my main reason for detesting streetcars is the SLUT. It goes from one commercial area to another, and there's very few residences in between. Living in Eastlake, I find it incredulous that it was built out an additional mile, and able to at least pick up the south end of the residential portion of my neighborhood.

    Granted, I also understand that there is hesitance in the neighborhood to having the streetcar expanded up Eastlake Ave, and into U-District (which I think would be optimal). With that in mind, however, if we could get a functional streetcar grid for above ground transportation (keep the First Hill-Capitol Hill on track, expand the SLUT to go all the way into the U-District, up the 50th, and down to the Stadiums along 3rd avenue, with four sets of rails to allow for express runs, then connect the First Hill/Cap Hill with the Downtown line, and eventually build out to Ballard via 15th, and West Seattle via the W. Seattle Bridge), I think we could have an awesome above ground transit network that actually worked, and served two under-served communities, as well as two high density communities.

    The big question - what to do about Light Rail.

    I would love to see Light Rail be, primarily, a freeway alternative. Have it expanded all the way north to Everett, with stops at the Park & Ride lots along the freeway, and south to Tacoma, again, stopping at park and ride lots.

    But then we run into the problem of making it easier for people to live in suburbs, however, a light rail train, I believe, would be much more attractive than buses.

    Ahhh...a dream world. But, in the interim - your last thought; would that be akin to what the City did for 3rd Ave?
  • Chaz
    @34

    You're right on all counts but we shouldn't as a city rely solely on sound transit's taxing authority for expanded service and rail. It may be that in the future we'll be able to utilize the city's taxing authority to help accelerate or partially finance mass transit on the western corridor. I don't think we should manage those light rail projects but we can contract with ST for them, just as ST is contracting with the city to build a streetcar line.

    As for tolling on city streets. That isn't my preferred method of controlling travel patterns. I think it is much more effective to take away some Right of way in high volume corridors and put in a streetcar or other fixed ROW transit (i.e. Portland Max and Streetcar lines).
  • Michael M.
    @33 -

    I do like taking credit. and you are far too kind.

    But, again, to the point -

    There are two things that you mention that are very important and require review, study, and (hopefully) implementation.

    First off, tolling on I-5. I like it. I really do. I don't want it if 405 isn't also tolled, or if parking isn't made cheaper in Seattle. Or, in the alternative, if it is only HOT lane tolling. The idea of losing suburban shoppers to the Eastside makes my stomach squirm.

    As for transportation alternatives - I love these. I look forward to light rail from West Seattle through Downtown and over to Ballard, but only through Sound Transit. And I would love to see a park and ride lot over in West Seattle, with a year-round passenger ferry from West Seattle to Downtown. And, of course, more bus routes during peak hours so that buses are more comfortable, and attractive to potential riders.

    That all being said, I do not support tolling on city streets, with very few exceptions (if any).
  • Chaz
    @32

    Well good comments beget good comments so I'd say you're the one who deserves credit.

    Anyway I think tolling can be effective but as long as I-5 isn't tolled diversion needs to seriously be studied to maximize throughput, otherwise we end up with an expensive tunnel and still a lot of trips falling onto surface streets and I-5, basically costly gridlock.

    I think we both agree that tolling is going to return some revenues. I guess I'm just a bit more skeptical (read: untrusting) of the WSDOT tolling strategy and numbers as revealed by the most recent study. I'm still dubious of the 61k vehicles, but even that is only a little over 50% of the current AWV load which means we need to push for transit and other improvements to eat up some of those trips that'll hit the surface.

    Frankly I think the high cost per trip tolling strategy outlined in the 2008 study is a bit political and designed to take some financial pressure off of the state legislators. This I cannot abide and hope that before the tunnel process is done we'll get a better tolling strategy.

    PS: Some of the NY toll points are a nightmare, but hey I almost never drive when I'm there (man I miss subways).
  • Michael M.
    @30

    You getting comment of the day is the second time someone has gotten that responding to a comment of mine. I feel sexy.

    Looking at the report, it says that the total that the tolls would have to pay off over the lifetime of the bonds is $450mm. I think that the report is overly optimistic with any suggestion that it would be feasible to increase tolls yearly, and continue to have revenue. However, I do believe that 61k cars per day is a reasonable number for the toll range provided, especially if 520 is also being tolled, and that raising the necessary money over the period of the bonds (I can't remember if they indicate how long the bonds would be) wouldn't be too difficult.

    But yeah, I've been to NYC once, and like their toll system (but can't stand how their automated toll lines work - too slow!!!).

    When it comes to how we do tolling throughout the city, I'm without a solid opinion as to how it would be best to do tolling.

    As for the maximization issue - I totally agree - a major part of tolling should be to encourage carpooling, alternative transportation and the like. At the same time, since we don't have an MVET, I would like to see something that pays for our major highways that comes from what uses those highways (and, it should be noted, I'm a driver. I drive to work, to pick up my daughter from school, to just about everything).
  • Chaz
    @27
    Well to be exact the tunnel's EIS isn't done so there is plenty of time to get the tolling numbers right. Honestly I'm all for tolling, I'm from the DC-NY corridor so I know how they can be used well. However, tolling should be done in the way that maximizes the capacity of the travel way.

    Also, your scenario falls victim to the same problems: if you increase the toll then fewer trips will go through the tunnel, you may not recover as much as you need, then you raise the toll again, and...etc.

    Further, the state shouldn't be caviller about the revenue used to finance bonds (the west coast already has one state with a crappy bond rating) and that's what they're doing with this tolling study. We already know they know how to find the right toll (they did it before).
  • Michael M.
    LOL@28@24

    It took me a while to figure it out, and then my neighbor in my office was like, "wtf", I sniggered so loud.
  • 24. NO, NOT THE ACERS. WHO WILL MAKE OUR CHEAP COMPUTERS THEN?

    23. I don't blame Nick for not engaging Jessie. He doesn't need to. He's got a strong base of voters on his side and all he probably needs to do is run the clock.
  • Michael M.
    @26 - Well, they assume 61,000 cars would use the tunnel each day, down from 105,000 that use the viaduct every day, and I would venture to guess that's a pretty good estimate.

    In the end, I would say that there have been enough studies. What this study does is lays the groundwork to issue bonds. If tolling does not capture enough revenue to pay for those bonds as expected, then tolls will have to increase. If they capture more than anticipated, then the bonds get paid off sooner.

    I don't ever see the tolls going away, though. Which is good. Limited use of tolling is a good thing. And the funds generated could be added to the transpo budget, and go towards more transpo projects across the state! (or, even better, more buses and light rail!)
  • Chaz
    @22 & @21

    The diversion is higher, but remember that the throughput will also be lower because fewer cars that use the viaduct will use the DBT. Which gets to my concern. The 2008 report and rates don't work to find the optimum toll it just seeks to set a toll to get enough money.

    The problem? Well already the DBT is going to dump a lot of traffic onto city streets and I-5. Tolling at the rates they want would mean an additional 40% of traffic would avoid the tunnel and be on surface streets. If you're going to build a multi billion dollar tunnel and then price people out of it, why build it? So we have WSDOT trying to solve the funding issue by poorly pricing the tolls. I'm not concerned as much about the manner in which we replace the AWV but WSDOT needs to complete a 2002 style study for the DBT and set the price that maximizes use not dollars. Why? Because the tunnel isn't a business it is a transportation project.
  • Send money
  • cindy bova
    PLEASE HELP AS THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF ACERS OF GREEN MARSH IS BEING KILLED WITH NOXIOUS CHEMICALS in the USA! climate change we can believe in!
    >
    > To our Elected Leaders and the Editor:
    >
    > Although global warming is a controversial subject, climate change is agreed upon by virtually everyone except the ostrich. This change of the weather also brings about a change in plant and eventually animal migrations. This plant migration is most likely mother nature's way of adapting to temperature and rain fall changes along with rising seas. This natural movement allows oxygen producing plants to die off in one area and start thriving in another. This keeps the oxygen to carbon ratio in our atmosphere sustainable to life.
    > Our Government, and The Nature Conservancy, among others, need to wake up and look at the big picture concerning the chemical eradication of spartina grasses.The reason this grass was thriving (before harmful chemicals) is because of climate change and nature trying to balance out the environment.
    > Please get involved and help stop this very unintelligent abuse of chemicals before its to late for our grandchildren! Give your elected leaders a wake-up call demanding an updated independent scientific review of Miranda Wecker's policies and investigate her possible ties to corporate oyster-growers and the Monsanto chemical corporation. If there aren't any ties we urge Ms. Wecker to upgrade her education by taking "common sense 101" at a college of her choice.(Miranda Wecker is Chairman of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and also holds a position with the University of Washington and a major proponent of spartina removal using noxious chemicals)
    > Thank you, Steve and Cynthia Bova(bova.cindy@yahoo.com)
    > 229 Toleak st
    > Ocean Shores, WA 98569
    > 360 580 5534
  • Mikos
    The thing about Nick is that, of course, he won't respond "in kind" to Israel. He did send out a goofy mailer. One of the very few I read. That's why he keeps getting elected. Most of the others were undifferentiated fluff. Jessie is still trying to figure out who she is and why we should vote for her. As others have pointed out repeatedly, she's on every side of every issue. Voters get that.
  • Michael M.
    @20

    Okay, after skimming the reports, one thing that definitely sticks out is that the second study shows a much higher toll diversion rate (40% compared to 18% in the 2002 study), which would jive with the considerably higher tolling.

    It also looks more closely at the North and South tolls, how they change for time of day, and expects weekend tolling of $1.25 regardless, as well as an increase in the toll, every year, tied to inflation (which it expects to be about 2.5%). Looking at the report closely, you see that it indicates the BONDING capacity is $410mm net, which, considering the projections, and how conservative they seem to be on diversion (which is sort of offset by how liberal the inflation aspect is), it seems a solid report.

    To the point of how they determined such a higher toll charge - again, they also consider a much higher diversion rate. They also had the opportunity to see the results of the HOT lanes which, while not comparable, per se, are the best thing that we have in this area for comparison. And how much are people paying there.

    God I hope that all made some sort of sense.
  • 20, my argument, and one sort of playing out on 167, is that the value of those fewer exits, to the reduced and time-sensitive traffic, will be higher to a reduced and specific group. Just like the hot lane.

    The other positive I see, is that once restricted by being sunk underground the state's right of way is off Seattle's surface. The WSDOT molemen can figure out how to best utilize their funnel.
    I would be just fine with scrapping the promanade for a bicycle freeway and light rail line along the waterfront, at that point.
  • Chaz
    @16 you can find it in the STB post: http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/26/viaduc...

    @18 I agree that diversion is a problem. One point is that with no downtown exits the tunnel will serve fewer trips and so the tolling base will be less. Another is that there is a monetary diversion problem as well as a geographic problem. The problem is that it doesn't seem like WSDOT is taking the former serious and just wants to come up with the magic number of 410 million.
  • Essdee Zee
    Hey Fizz Kids: looks like you didn't see Issue #2 of The Seattle Planet. Bummer.

    Since #2 was #final, the 100,000 copies that went into book/coffee/barber/hair/nail emporia, apartments, senior centers, The SeaTimes, and The Stranger are now valuable collectors' items.

    Lois, Jimmy, Clark and I are sitting here in Mr. White's office fielding all the kudoses (kudi?) from voters who preferred to peruse our goofy, spoofy rag to a glossy full-color mailer that is humorless; either pisses'em off or tugs at the heartstrings; tells'em nada; puts extra synthetic chemical molecules in the recycling, and just will not do to wrap fish or line a parakeet cage.
  • 13, how and where to toll an open system with downtown exits is not something you have to study to see a problem. Who is going to get on and off 1/3 of the segment (as many do right now).


    Beginning on sheet #10 (page number 5), "trip chaining", and "localized divertion" is a drag on revenue. With a system with many entrances and exits you kind of have to toll all around the given road way, or you lose tolling to alterative routes. Building a tunnel with the purpose of providing many ways to get on and off makes it harder to toll.
    http://students.washington.edu/adambp/toll_2002...

    That is not the purpose of the DBT. It is a state highway bypass with limited entrances/exits/lights/stops pass through "hot lane" style tolling on the tunnel does not have the same attributes as a cut-and-cover tunnel with the downtown exits.
    They are different tunnels for different purposes. The ability to toll people in different systems is academic.
  • Pete
    @15, ESSB 5768 calls for $2.4B in state funding for the DBT with an additional $400M to be financed from toll revenue should costs exceed $2.4B. The $400M would not need to be raised by tolling in 4 years as you suggest - it would likely be financed through a revenue bond and paid for over a long time period.
  • Michael M.
    @15 -

    Do you have a link for the WSDOT study? I'd like to look through that. Thanks!

    Also, has anyone seen the Washington Poll poll that came out today? Good news on 1033, R71, and Dow. Depends on whom you support as to whether the mayor's race is good news ;-)
  • Chaz
    Quick math. Needing about 410 million over four years (that's what the WSDOT study says) tolling would have to pull in 102 million a year or about 8.5 million a month to make that much. Just as a way of comparison only two tolled structures (the Lincoln tunnel and the George Washington Bridge) in NY City bring in that much. (source: http://www.stewartintlairport.com/budget_cap_pl...)

    The point?
  • @11, you can count on tolling, on those parts, and more as gas is replaced with electric powered cars.
    I really, really, think they need to tax passenger tires.

    From the pov of reducing CO2 Deb Eddy was showing a chart on tvw last night that shows tolling having a very minor impact on reducing pollution. Hybrid-electric and esp. fully electric is where the state sees the bang for the buck.
    WSDOT director's point about the fractured mass transit solutions making state-wide prticipation in solutions difficult is obvious. So, get ready for a bunch of plugin stations, and ways to collect non-gasoline taxes for roads.
  • Chaz
    @8
    What on earth are you talking about? You're just making it up as you go along. I didn't know you conducted the tolling study in 2002. Even WSDOT said that fewer people would use the tunnel without downtown exits. Fewer people = less toll money.
  • Hot lane performance report, May 2008 through April 2009
    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/31FB3D24-7...
  • Michael M.
    So I looked it up myself. Apparently they've only been open since May, 2008 (I thought they had been around longer than that).

    Considering how much those can go up to (the range is $0.50-$9.00, but most of the time it maxes out at $2.75), perhaps that was a barometer.

    Granted, the HOT lanes on 167 are not 24 hours, and are for a specific lane, meant to put a premium on a smoother ride.

    With that in mind, $316,600 in revenue was generated in the first year (per the 2009 annual report). The monthly revenue was a bit over $25,000 per month through December of 2008, and a bit over $28,000 per month thereafter.

    So, for a tunnel that is going to be tolled, with variable tolling (I'm assuming), $1.10 - $2.25 doesn't seem that terrible, nor does it seem that unlikely that people would pay it.

    Which is good, because we're going to have to get used to more tolling in our region (520, and, hopefully, I-90 someday, amongst others).

    Just my thought.
  • @2, May 2008
    variable speed limit starts now.
    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/SR167/HOTLanes/
  • 7, is that what that poorly made cable tv commercial is?
  • 3, with downtown exits being able to toll people for a very short segment of the cut and cover was an issue.
    How does McGinn "improve" I-5 throughput? By eliminating 2 downtown exits.
  • Jessie Israel could release a sex tape of Nick Licata and Link in Freeway Park right now and Nick would probably still win this election with about 55-60% of the vote.

    She's received and spent a lot of money on an also-ran campaign.
  • Andrew
    Erica,

    The Licata Campaign has spent $25,000 on TV ads and intends to spend more. All that in addition to our goofy paper.

    Andrew
  • tallyho
    Do you have the wrong link for the phone banking?
  • abc
    The same broadcast on KJR promoted voting Carr out of office.
  • Absolutpolitic
    Mr. Baker that's made-up nonsense. With downtown exits the tunnel actually serves trips to/from downtown. The bypass tunnel would serve far fewer trips, resulting in less demand, and lower toll revenue, not more.
  • Michael M.
    When did the HOT tolling begin on 167? (I can't give a snarky answer without that piece of information)
  • About 3, Brian Robinson of Save Our Sonics was on 950-KJR yesterday endorsing Jessie Israel, and encouraging all sports fans to vote for Israel and defete Licata.
    http://www.kjram.com/cc-common/podcast/single_p...

    About 1, being able to escape the tolling zone, or use the cut and cover for the downtown exits muddied its purpose. Turns out people are not willing to pay a toll to travel through with two traffic clogging exits, but would be more inclined to pay a toll to pass through.

    Regardless, the state "law" put the state on the hook for 2.8 billion dollars of revenue.

    McGinn ran an anti-tunnel commercial last night as part of his effort to not obstruct the current efforts.
blog comments powered by Disqus