Tolls... on the existing bridge?

[tefen]

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/02/washington_lawmakers_green_lig.html

According to this blog post on the Oregonian site, "tolls could be imposed before construction even begins."

Specifically, it's talking about a bridge in Seattle, but the same law would apply here with the Columbia River Crossing.

[Chief]

From the article...

Tolls could be imposed before construction even begins, as in the case of the new 520 bridge, or for an entire transportation corridor, such as I-90 or I-405 improvements in the Seattle-Bellevue region.

The legislation doesn't authorize tolls for any particular project, but anticipates that future legislatures would vote on each toll project as it's ready to go.

The state Transportation Commission would propose the actual level of the tolls.

In other words, we aren't quite there yet. There's no need for a toll yet, since no project has been approved on the CRC yet.

I cannot see this beig approved locally, and it would have to be a ballot measure before it happened. Figure the odds on wheter it would pass...

The other item this overlooks is that they may try to toll the I-5 crossing, but Federal Law still prohibits tolling another bridge to pay for a separate project. So even if I-5 were tolled beforehand, all it would do is hammer the Glenn Jackson Bridge from people avoiding the tolls.

[Waterbuffalo]

I think after really think this through I do have a question to ask and see what reaction do others have to it?

I've felt that things must pay for themselves by the users that use them. Meaning that if someone uses a bridge, they find a way to effectively pay for such a bridge.

In Washington state, we do that mostly I believe through gas taxes and other means.

So why should we pay tolls on this bridge to pay for it? If I am using the bridge to go into Oregon, why should I get a free ride over there.

Went to the RTC meeting and there was some discussion (cut off to focus on what they were really there to do.) about tolls. Why BG had a lower income population and should pay a lower faire than every one else. Heard this several other places.

My question is, if the tolls are high enough to deter people from just running over the bridge for some some cheap free goods at one of the stores in Oregon, cheap enough to sort out traffic to who needs priority of the use of that bridge and the person who needs it most pays the most for its use. (aka if you have a job that requires you to be in Oregon at 8:30am in the morning and out by 5pm, should you not pay the highest toll?

The whole discussion of tolls have got me perplexed in my own thinking. May be I should start a sticked thread on the discussion. Or do/did we have a sticky/thread of this?

[Chief]

I realize that tolls are a reality in order to pay for at least a portion of a project of this maginitude. It is not unusual for a locality to let bonds to pay for the construction with tolls being used to repay those bonds. In theory, once the bonds are paid, the tolls go away. That's how it has worked in the past.

This time we are talking about "Congestion pricing" which imposes a higher rate during peak hours to try and force people off the crossing at those times. It sounds good in theory, until you consider that the majority of those peak hour crossers are commuters trying to get to work.

Is it fair to make someone pay the kind of high rates we hear being discussed, merely so the can get to work?

In addition, those commuters from Clark County who Work in Oregon are paying personal income taxes to the state of Oregon already. We're talking about $150,000,000 + in personal income taxes alone.

In addition, every Tri-County employer pays Trimet taxes based on the hours worked of theri employees. That means that Trimet is already getting money on your behalf, if you are a Clark County resident working in Oregon.

How much more should Clark County residents be required to pay??

They have electronic tolling options available, so it should be an easy matter to issue transceivers to Clark County commuters to ensure they are not charged any tolls, up to and equal to the amount of the taxes that they are already paying.

There are plenty of vehicles that are eligible to pay the tolls, especially Commercial Vehicles. Since the prime diriective of the Columbia Crossing Project was to improve freight mobility in the BIA, then the commercial tolls (for non-local commercial vehicles that is) should be commensurately higher.

In short, there has been no discussion of how to accomodate the Clark County commuter and account for the Millions they already pay to Oregon. Right now, it looks like Oregon is going to figure out ways to make as many Clark County Commuters pay for this bridge as they can. That dog won't hunt, and will also doom any Clark County approval for anything that goes on at the Columbia Crossing Project.

:mad:

[Waterbuffalo]

This will be worthy now of discussion. Because Steve and Royce along with the SW Washington will be making a choice that could affect us for a long time, its time to start asking the heavy handed questions.

Especially that in the next 30 days or less the Columbia River Crossing DEIS will be coming out.

I don't even want to know the Executive summary level....

[Chief]

bttt...

We.ve been on this for a while, but the local media just caught up...

[Waterbuffalo]

For at least a year Chief?

I think Chief and I have been talking about it that long. And some of our sourcing materials are not the local news media but Seattle media, which is sad.

Well I better get back to reading all of these new posts.. Hey Chief, keep the torrent postings coming.. (I do need to comment on Some thing?? :-)

[Chief]

The issue of tolls, and the plans for "congestion pricing" will be yet another reason that the Federal Government will ultimately kill the Columbia Crossing Project.

Another will be the entire concept of using any toll monies to pay for anything but the construction of the bridge without the approval of the voters.

A few key features of tolling to remember:

** The tolls will NEVER go away. Tolls are a permanent traffic control feature of the new Columbia Crossing.

** Tolls will be variable. If you are stuck in traffic, there is a good chance the toll will increase automatically, and without your knowledge while you are waiting.

** In order to get a "premium rate" commuters will be required to get a transponder for each of their cars, which will be either pre-paid or tied to your bank account.

** For any tolling scheme on the I-5 crossing to work properly, I-205 must be tolled as well at the glen Jackson Bridge.

** Tolling revenue will be used directly to expand light rail.

** Future tolling revenue will be used to secure bonding for even more light rail expansion.

** Nine months after the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge opened, the first $1.00 rise in tolls has been approved and will take effect on July 1st of this year.

Understand that the game has changed significantly since the battle was fought back in 1995. Jeanne Lipton published "Let the Voter Beware" back then and I see copies of that booklet are still floating around, but it is almost useless in the game that the Columbia Crossing Project has constructed. If that is what you are relying on, you are 13 years or more behind the curve and your line of reasoning has already been worked around, and will be ignored.

Presenting out-dated material that is off-topic will serve noone. Urge people to get up to speed with what is being planned around these tolls before it is simply too late.