Tolls on the Columbia Crossing

[Chief]

For this discussion I am using primarily 2 documents from the DEIS:

Chapter 2: Description of Alternatives (http://www.clarkblog.org/DEIS/CRC_DEIS_Chapter_2_v.7.pdf?s=&showtopic=4351&view=findpost&p=28980)

Chapter 4: Financial Analysis (http://www.clarkblog.org/DEIS/CRC_DEIS_Chapter_4_v.7.pdf?s=&showtopic=4351&view=findpost&p=28980)

There are other documents and Technical Reports that I may introduce as well, but I'll link them as necessary.

[Chief]

From chapter 4, page 4-24

Use of Toll Revenues and Bond Proceeds

In Oregon, toll revenues and bond proceeds are restricted by the state
constitution to highway purposes. The Washington state constitution
does not have a similar prohibition. However, under recent Washington
law the use of toll revenues must be specifically authorized by the
legislature, which to date has not authorized toll revenues to be used for
transit purposes. Thus, the financial plan scenarios discussed in Section
4.4 assume that toll revenues would only be used for the capital and
operations costs related to the highway component of the CRC
alternatives.

This is a major hole in the story that the City of vancouver has been weaving about how to pay for Loot Rail. Thayer Rohrbaugh has been telling folks that the City is "looking into" using toll revenues to pay for Operations and Maintenance of the light rail line into Downtown Vancouver, and that clearly is not permissible under current Washington Law.

There is no guarantee that the Legislature will even consider, much less pass legislation that makes this kind of financial wheeling and dealing possible, so it is irresponsible at the very least for the City of Vancouver to base any plans for operating light rail on bridge toll revenues.

But also take notice that we are discussing Tolls and Bonds in the same paragraph folks; that's because it is possible to bond for a bridge using future toll proceeds as the means to pay off those bonds. What light rail special interests are trying to do is tap those same toll-based bond proceeds for light rail construction funds, so they can expand the Minimal Operating Segment (MOS) from wherever it stops, into the rest of Clark County.

Keep in mind, we could pay off a $2 Billion Dollar bridge alone in a couple of years with reasonable tolls, but instead we are talking about permanent tolls, and ways to tap that revenue stream to pay for transit that virtually noone supports.

That means that the local "Blue Wave" delegation to Olympia has their work cut out for them in order to gerrymander the Washington Revised Code to allow this all to happen without asking the permission of those annoying local voters...

[Chief]

From Chapter 2, Description of Alternatives, 2.3.5 Tolling

Tolling cars and trucks that use the I-5 river crossing is being considered
as a method to help fund the CRC project and to encourage the use of
alternative modes of transportation. The authority to toll the I-5 crossing
is set by federal and state laws. Federal statutes permit a toll-free bridge
on an interstate highway to be converted to a tolled facility following the
reconstruction or replacement of the bridge, and the CRC project would
fall within these conditions.1 Prior to imposing tolls on I-5, Washington
and Oregon departments of transportation (WSDOT and ODOT) would
have to enter into a toll agreement with U.S. Department of
Transportation. Recently passed state legislation in Washington permits
WSDOT to toll I-5 provided that the tolling of the facility is first
authorized by the Washington legislature.2 Once authorized by the
legislature, the Washington Transportation Commission has the authority
to set the toll rates. In Oregon, the Oregon Transportation Commission
has the authority to impose a toll on a facility and to set the toll rate.3 It is
anticipated that prior to tolling I-5, ODOT and WSDOT would enter into
a bi-state tolling agreement to establish a cooperative process for
imposing tolls, set toll rates, and guide the use of toll revenues.

Four tolling scenarios have been evaluated:

• No toll (part of the No-Build Alternative, and also modeled for
Alternative 3 to help determine the traffic effects of tolling the I-5
crossing)

• Standard variable rate on the I-5 crossing (paired with Alternatives 2
and 3)

• Higher variable rate on the I-5 crossing (paired with Alternatives 4
and 5)

• Standard variable rate on both the I-5 and I-205 crossings (not paired
with any build alternative, but evaluated separately to assess
potential traffic diversions resulting from tolling the I-5 crossing).

*SNIP*

Tolls would be collected using an electronic toll collection system, and
toll collection booths would not be required. Instead, motorists could
equip their cars with transponders that would automatically bill the
vehicle owner each time they crossed the bridge, while cars without
transponders would be tolled by a license-plate recognition system that
would bill the address of the owner registered to that license plate.


This is the guts of the tolling plan that has been under consideration for quite some time. It's not very specific and far from an in-depth examination of the issue, but you get the idea. In the document itself on page 2-41 there is a chart that shows a peak toll of $2.00, but there has already been speculation in local media of peak tolls that are much higher than that.

In fact, the traffic management plans for the I-5 crossing include raising the peak rush-hour tolls as high as is necessary to force cars to cross at a different time.

You should also notice that there is no discussion whatsoever of retiring the tolls on the crossing once the new bridge is paid for. Again, the "revenue stream" that the tolls generate is considerable, and there are plans underway to try and tap that revenue to expand Loot Rail.

[Chief]

And then we have these jewels...

2.3.6 Transportation System and Demand Management
Measures

Early phases of alternative development for the CRC project evaluated a
package of aggressive measures for increasing the efficiency of the
regional transportation network and for reducing vehicular demand.
However, without roadway and transit capacity improvements, these
measures cannot meet the project’s purpose and need, because they do
not improve traffic safety, improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities on
I-5, or reduce the vulnerability of the I-5 crossing to earthquake damage.
However, all build alternatives evaluated in this DEIS include
transportation system management (TSM) and transportation demand
management (TDM) measures to help reduce congestion during the peak
travel period, improve efficient use of the transportation network, and
provide alternative transportation options to commuters.

*SNIP*

Transportation demand management seeks to reduce the number of
vehicles using the road system, especially single-occupant vehicles,
while providing alternative options to auto travel. The progressive
approach to demand management currently in place regionally already
contains a mix of features that provide incentives to use alternative modes of
transportation. Many of the proposed CRC features described in the previous
sections would assist in regional travel demand management. These include:

• A high-capacity transit system with an exclusive right-of-way
through the project area;

• An improved path for bicyclists and pedestrians over the Columbia
River that complies with modern design standards; and

• A toll collection system for vehicles using the I-5 crossing.


**SCHNIPP**

First of all, why in the name of God do we insist on adding more Pedestrian and bicycly traffic into the I-5 Corridor?? there is very little of either on the crossing right now, and most of the pedestrians are transients anyway.

And notice how we have the needs of mass transit, bikes and pedestrians met by tolling all of those automobiles who dare drive across on the Interstate Highway.

This group has completely lost focus of what the real need is at the crossing, and that is to replace the bridge itself. Every other need comes first though, with no mention of how anyone other than an automobile driver will pay for any of this.

And who will pay for all of these goodies if they succeed in driving all of the drivers off of I-5?? What if toll revenues aren't anywhere near what they project, and they successfully bond against a higher amount anyway??