PubliCola Comment of the Day Goes To…

Please that makes as much sense as saying that a car tab fee is akin to torture. The reality is that driving has long been subsidized over other modes of travel and when oil prices climb we as a country are going to pay the price for that choice of incentives. I’d say more but I doubt it’ll matter to those who rely on such hyperbole.

Please that makes as much sense as saying that a car tab fee is akin to torture. The reality is that driving has long been subsidized over other modes of travel and when oil prices climb we as a country are going to pay the price for that choice of incentives. I’d say more but I doubt it’ll matter to those who rely on such hyperbole.

Please that makes as much sense as saying that a car tab fee is akin to torture. The reality is that driving has long been subsidized over other modes of travel and when oil prices climb we as a country are going to pay the price for that choice of incentives. I’d say more but I doubt it’ll matter to those who rely on such hyperbole.

Please that makes as much sense as saying that a car tab fee is akin to torture. The reality is that driving has long been subsidized over other modes of travel and when oil prices climb we as a country are going to pay the price for that choice of incentives. I’d say more but I doubt it’ll matter to those who rely on such hyperbole.

@1,

Chaz, I think you’re missing it. I think Gomez is making an analogy not a literal comparison.

That is: The decision not to drive isn’t the commuter’s real choice, just as the info the CIA gets from tortured suspects isn’t real information.

It’s not that tolling is torture, it’s that the result is suspect behavior.

The analogy is between the end not the means.

@1,

Chaz, I think you’re missing it. I think Gomez is making an analogy not a literal comparison.

That is: The decision not to drive isn’t the commuter’s real choice, just as the info the CIA gets from tortured suspects isn’t real information.

It’s not that tolling is torture, it’s that the result is suspect behavior.

The analogy is between the end not the means.

@1,

Chaz, I think you’re missing it. I think Gomez is making an analogy not a literal comparison.

That is: The decision not to drive isn’t the commuter’s real choice, just as the info the CIA gets from tortured suspects isn’t real information.

It’s not that tolling is torture, it’s that the result is suspect behavior.

The analogy is between the end not the means.

@1,

Chaz, I think you’re missing it. I think Gomez is making an analogy not a literal comparison.

That is: The decision not to drive isn’t the commuter’s real choice, just as the info the CIA gets from tortured suspects isn’t real information.

It’s not that tolling is torture, it’s that the result is suspect behavior.

The analogy is between the end not the means.

@2 But it is not a good analogy for reasons that are obvious

It’s a stupid analogy. But what the surface/transit people miss is that if you make driving harder/more difficult in some place and don’t provide an alternative (you, really, really need the transit part) people will just not make the trip there.

That doesn’t mean they won’t make any trip. They may move to Monroe and drive to Bellevue instead of living in West Seattle and drive to Ballard, or move to Phoenix and drive to Tempe, etc.

It’s a stupid analogy. But what the surface/transit people miss is that if you make driving harder/more difficult in some place and don’t provide an alternative (you, really, really need the transit part) people will just not make the trip there.

That doesn’t mean they won’t make any trip. They may move to Monroe and drive to Bellevue instead of living in West Seattle and drive to Ballard, or move to Phoenix and drive to Tempe, etc.

It’s a stupid analogy. But what the surface/transit people miss is that if you make driving harder/more difficult in some place and don’t provide an alternative (you, really, really need the transit part) people will just not make the trip there.

That doesn’t mean they won’t make any trip. They may move to Monroe and drive to Bellevue instead of living in West Seattle and drive to Ballard, or move to Phoenix and drive to Tempe, etc.

It’s a stupid analogy. But what the surface/transit people miss is that if you make driving harder/more difficult in some place and don’t provide an alternative (you, really, really need the transit part) people will just not make the trip there.

That doesn’t mean they won’t make any trip. They may move to Monroe and drive to Bellevue instead of living in West Seattle and drive to Ballard, or move to Phoenix and drive to Tempe, etc.

It’s a stupid analogy. But what the surface/transit people miss is that if you make driving harder/more difficult in some place and don’t provide an alternative (you, really, really need the transit part) people will just not make the trip there.

That doesn’t mean they won’t make any trip. They may move to Monroe and drive to Bellevue instead of living in West Seattle and drive to Ballard, or move to Phoenix and drive to Tempe, etc.

Great analogy because I still get a perverse sense of satisfaction at punishing drivers even if it actually doesn’t accomplish anything.

Great analogy because I still get a perverse sense of satisfaction at punishing drivers even if it actually doesn’t accomplish anything.

Great analogy because I still get a perverse sense of satisfaction at punishing drivers even if it actually doesn’t accomplish anything.

Great analogy because I still get a perverse sense of satisfaction at punishing drivers even if it actually doesn’t accomplish anything.

Great analogy because I still get a perverse sense of satisfaction at punishing drivers even if it actually doesn’t accomplish anything.

@5: Yes, we drivers know that. You’re not alone in that perverse satisfaction. Until that isn’t so apparent in the anti-driver rhetoric, we just can’t take you seriously. Better to use your energy to push for a better bus system.

@5: Yes, we drivers know that. You’re not alone in that perverse satisfaction. Until that isn’t so apparent in the anti-driver rhetoric, we just can’t take you seriously. Better to use your energy to push for a better bus system.

@5: Yes, we drivers know that. You’re not alone in that perverse satisfaction. Until that isn’t so apparent in the anti-driver rhetoric, we just can’t take you seriously. Better to use your energy to push for a better bus system.

@5: Yes, we drivers know that. You’re not alone in that perverse satisfaction. Until that isn’t so apparent in the anti-driver rhetoric, we just can’t take you seriously. Better to use your energy to push for a better bus system.

@5: Yes, we drivers know that. You’re not alone in that perverse satisfaction. Until that isn’t so apparent in the anti-driver rhetoric, we just can’t take you seriously. Better to use your energy to push for a better bus system.

Except he’s wrong.

In London the congestion charge in place since 2003 has led to a 21% decrease in car traffic. Much of that came immediately after the charge was introduced.

In Stockholm traffic fell by 25% when a congestion charge was introduced. It returned to previous levels when the charge was removed.

In Southern California – Orange County, to be exact, where the car is king – high tolls on the 91 express lanes and the 73 toll road have led to significant decreases in usage (and put both systems into bankruptcy – the 91 express lanes were taken over by the county, the 73 toll road is being subsidized by other toll roads in the county).

Maybe Gomez’s statement feels true, but that doesn’t make it true. Only evidence does.

Except he’s wrong.

In London the congestion charge in place since 2003 has led to a 21% decrease in car traffic. Much of that came immediately after the charge was introduced.

In Stockholm traffic fell by 25% when a congestion charge was introduced. It returned to previous levels when the charge was removed.

In Southern California – Orange County, to be exact, where the car is king – high tolls on the 91 express lanes and the 73 toll road have led to significant decreases in usage (and put both systems into bankruptcy – the 91 express lanes were taken over by the county, the 73 toll road is being subsidized by other toll roads in the county).

Maybe Gomez’s statement feels true, but that doesn’t make it true. Only evidence does.

Except he’s wrong.

In London the congestion charge in place since 2003 has led to a 21% decrease in car traffic. Much of that came immediately after the charge was introduced.

In Stockholm traffic fell by 25% when a congestion charge was introduced. It returned to previous levels when the charge was removed.

In Southern California – Orange County, to be exact, where the car is king – high tolls on the 91 express lanes and the 73 toll road have led to significant decreases in usage (and put both systems into bankruptcy – the 91 express lanes were taken over by the county, the 73 toll road is being subsidized by other toll roads in the county).

Maybe Gomez’s statement feels true, but that doesn’t make it true. Only evidence does.

Except he’s wrong.

In London the congestion charge in place since 2003 has led to a 21% decrease in car traffic. Much of that came immediately after the charge was introduced.

In Stockholm traffic fell by 25% when a congestion charge was introduced. It returned to previous levels when the charge was removed.

In Southern California – Orange County, to be exact, where the car is king – high tolls on the 91 express lanes and the 73 toll road have led to significant decreases in usage (and put both systems into bankruptcy – the 91 express lanes were taken over by the county, the 73 toll road is being subsidized by other toll roads in the county).

Maybe Gomez’s statement feels true, but that doesn’t make it true. Only evidence does.

Except he’s wrong.

In London the congestion charge in place since 2003 has led to a 21% decrease in car traffic. Much of that came immediately after the charge was introduced.

In Stockholm traffic fell by 25% when a congestion charge was introduced. It returned to previous levels when the charge was removed.

In Southern California – Orange County, to be exact, where the car is king – high tolls on the 91 express lanes and the 73 toll road have led to significant decreases in usage (and put both systems into bankruptcy – the 91 express lanes were taken over by the county, the 73 toll road is being subsidized by other toll roads in the county).

Maybe Gomez’s statement feels true, but that doesn’t make it true. Only evidence does.

Lest we forget, the rise in gas prices last summer drove a lot of people out of their cars. I’d say that’s a disincentive, and it certainly seemed to work.

Lest we forget, the rise in gas prices last summer drove a lot of people out of their cars. I’d say that’s a disincentive, and it certainly seemed to work.

Lest we forget, the rise in gas prices last summer drove a lot of people out of their cars. I’d say that’s a disincentive, and it certainly seemed to work.

Lest we forget, the rise in gas prices last summer drove a lot of people out of their cars. I’d say that’s a disincentive, and it certainly seemed to work.

Wow, talk about apples and oranges! So disincentives to drive make drivers admit to fake bus rides? Did Glenn Beck come up with this one?

Wow, talk about apples and oranges! So disincentives to drive make drivers admit to fake bus rides? Did Glenn Beck come up with this one?

Wow, talk about apples and oranges! So disincentives to drive make drivers admit to fake bus rides? Did Glenn Beck come up with this one?

Wow, talk about apples and oranges! So disincentives to drive make drivers admit to fake bus rides? Did Glenn Beck come up with this one?

@7 Yes, true. I visit London regularly. Since they introduced the congestion tax, traffic has gone way down, no question about that. The wealthy folks in the Rolls Royces and Mercedes now zip around town and really appreciate their new found mobility. All those working blokes in their Vauxhalls are now banished to the burbs, and no longer block the way to shopping at Harrods. A great success.

@7 Yes, true. I visit London regularly. Since they introduced the congestion tax, traffic has gone way down, no question about that. The wealthy folks in the Rolls Royces and Mercedes now zip around town and really appreciate their new found mobility. All those working blokes in their Vauxhalls are now banished to the burbs, and no longer block the way to shopping at Harrods. A great success.

@7 Yes, true. I visit London regularly. Since they introduced the congestion tax, traffic has gone way down, no question about that. The wealthy folks in the Rolls Royces and Mercedes now zip around town and really appreciate their new found mobility. All those working blokes in their Vauxhalls are now banished to the burbs, and no longer block the way to shopping at Harrods. A great success.

@7 Yes, true. I visit London regularly. Since they introduced the congestion tax, traffic has gone way down, no question about that. The wealthy folks in the Rolls Royces and Mercedes now zip around town and really appreciate their new found mobility. All those working blokes in their Vauxhalls are now banished to the burbs, and no longer block the way to shopping at Harrods. A great success.

@7 Yes, true. I visit London regularly. Since they introduced the congestion tax, traffic has gone way down, no question about that. The wealthy folks in the Rolls Royces and Mercedes now zip around town and really appreciate their new found mobility. All those working blokes in their Vauxhalls are now banished to the burbs, and no longer block the way to shopping at Harrods. A great success.

@10, zing!

@10, zing!

@10, zing!

@10, zing!

@2 that’s a totured explanation.

Now to important stuff: have you read Grant Cogswell’s piece in The Stranger? My Gawd-that boy could teach Dan Savage a thing or two about self-promotion: He designed a two billion dollar transit system on his kitchen table. He has been in the center of all major and minor political activities in Seattle for the past twenty years. He drinks with a city council woman!
And he has done all of this while living a good deal of the time in Mexico, writing movies and raising money to produce them, and all the while sipping from a hip flask. I strongly suspect that he has boinked Tori Spelling but is too much a gentleman to admit it publicly. He hold’s all of us in contempt. And all that information is on the first page.

Publicola would be wise to read that most insightful political analysis as a resume and immediately offer the friggin genius a job.

@2 that’s a totured explanation.

Now to important stuff: have you read Grant Cogswell’s piece in The Stranger? My Gawd-that boy could teach Dan Savage a thing or two about self-promotion: He designed a two billion dollar transit system on his kitchen table. He has been in the center of all major and minor political activities in Seattle for the past twenty years. He drinks with a city council woman!
And he has done all of this while living a good deal of the time in Mexico, writing movies and raising money to produce them, and all the while sipping from a hip flask. I strongly suspect that he has boinked Tori Spelling but is too much a gentleman to admit it publicly. He hold’s all of us in contempt. And all that information is on the first page.

Publicola would be wise to read that most insightful political analysis as a resume and immediately offer the friggin genius a job.

@2 that’s a totured explanation.

Now to important stuff: have you read Grant Cogswell’s piece in The Stranger? My Gawd-that boy could teach Dan Savage a thing or two about self-promotion: He designed a two billion dollar transit system on his kitchen table. He has been in the center of all major and minor political activities in Seattle for the past twenty years. He drinks with a city council woman!
And he has done all of this while living a good deal of the time in Mexico, writing movies and raising money to produce them, and all the while sipping from a hip flask. I strongly suspect that he has boinked Tori Spelling but is too much a gentleman to admit it publicly. He hold’s all of us in contempt. And all that information is on the first page.

Publicola would be wise to read that most insightful political analysis as a resume and immediately offer the friggin genius a job.

@2 that’s a totured explanation.

Now to important stuff: have you read Grant Cogswell’s piece in The Stranger? My Gawd-that boy could teach Dan Savage a thing or two about self-promotion: He designed a two billion dollar transit system on his kitchen table. He has been in the center of all major and minor political activities in Seattle for the past twenty years. He drinks with a city council woman!
And he has done all of this while living a good deal of the time in Mexico, writing movies and raising money to produce them, and all the while sipping from a hip flask. I strongly suspect that he has boinked Tori Spelling but is too much a gentleman to admit it publicly. He hold’s all of us in contempt. And all that information is on the first page.

Publicola would be wise to read that most insightful political analysis as a resume and immediately offer the friggin genius a job.

@7 Actually that kind of proves his point. The fact that it returned showed it was not a real change and since we live in a somewhat democracy you can only punish people into changing for so long before the put a stop to it. Case in point, had Olympia fixed the broken car tab tax we could have avoided Tim Eyman’s ‘fix’.

The real solution is to make other forms of transportation better and to work to built communities that can rely on walking, biking, busing, and rail more. That would get a real shift in mentality that would be permanent.

@7 Actually that kind of proves his point. The fact that it returned showed it was not a real change and since we live in a somewhat democracy you can only punish people into changing for so long before the put a stop to it. Case in point, had Olympia fixed the broken car tab tax we could have avoided Tim Eyman’s ‘fix’.

The real solution is to make other forms of transportation better and to work to built communities that can rely on walking, biking, busing, and rail more. That would get a real shift in mentality that would be permanent.

@7 Actually that kind of proves his point. The fact that it returned showed it was not a real change and since we live in a somewhat democracy you can only punish people into changing for so long before the put a stop to it. Case in point, had Olympia fixed the broken car tab tax we could have avoided Tim Eyman’s ‘fix’.

The real solution is to make other forms of transportation better and to work to built communities that can rely on walking, biking, busing, and rail more. That would get a real shift in mentality that would be permanent.

@7 Actually that kind of proves his point. The fact that it returned showed it was not a real change and since we live in a somewhat democracy you can only punish people into changing for so long before the put a stop to it. Case in point, had Olympia fixed the broken car tab tax we could have avoided Tim Eyman’s ‘fix’.

The real solution is to make other forms of transportation better and to work to built communities that can rely on walking, biking, busing, and rail more. That would get a real shift in mentality that would be permanent.

@7 Actually that kind of proves his point. The fact that it returned showed it was not a real change and since we live in a somewhat democracy you can only punish people into changing for so long before the put a stop to it. Case in point, had Olympia fixed the broken car tab tax we could have avoided Tim Eyman’s ‘fix’.

The real solution is to make other forms of transportation better and to work to built communities that can rely on walking, biking, busing, and rail more. That would get a real shift in mentality that would be permanent.

@8 – False data point unless you think you can get everyone in the world to add congestion pricing simultaneously.

@4 and @10 are closer to being right. People (and their cash and jobs) just go somewhere else.

The solution isn’t to beat people out of their cars, at least not in Seattle. The solution is to attract them out with a public transit system that works.

When they charged me extra for double guacamole on my tacos, that was just like the firebombing of Dresden. If they’d dropped jalapeno peppers on the city instead of incendiary bombs, maybe. Metaphors are hard!

The real moral of the story is that it’s politically impossible to raise money to pay for needed infrastructure, so politicians try to make it “pay for itself”, even if that’s self-defeating. If the tunnel is really so damn good for the region, they should just pay for it.

When they charged me extra for double guacamole on my tacos, that was just like the firebombing of Dresden. If they’d dropped jalapeno peppers on the city instead of incendiary bombs, maybe. Metaphors are hard!

The real moral of the story is that it’s politically impossible to raise money to pay for needed infrastructure, so politicians try to make it “pay for itself”, even if that’s self-defeating. If the tunnel is really so damn good for the region, they should just pay for it.

When they charged me extra for double guacamole on my tacos, that was just like the firebombing of Dresden. If they’d dropped jalapeno peppers on the city instead of incendiary bombs, maybe. Metaphors are hard!

The real moral of the story is that it’s politically impossible to raise money to pay for needed infrastructure, so politicians try to make it “pay for itself”, even if that’s self-defeating. If the tunnel is really so damn good for the region, they should just pay for it.

@8 – False data point unless you think you can get everyone in the world to add congestion pricing simultaneously.

@4 and @10 are closer to being right. People (and their cash and jobs) just go somewhere else.

The solution isn’t to beat people out of their cars, at least not in Seattle. The solution is to attract them out with a public transit system that works.

When they charged me extra for double guacamole on my tacos, that was just like the firebombing of Dresden. If they’d dropped jalapeno peppers on the city instead of incendiary bombs, maybe. Metaphors are hard!

The real moral of the story is that it’s politically impossible to raise money to pay for needed infrastructure, so politicians try to make it “pay for itself”, even if that’s self-defeating. If the tunnel is really so damn good for the region, they should just pay for it.

@7 is right

add to that the experiences of Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Melbourne, etc. where non-financial disincentives to autos have produced the highest rates of auto-independence in the world.

The idea you can’t get people not to drive by providing incentives is a departure from reality.

@7 is right

add to that the experiences of Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Melbourne, etc. where non-financial disincentives to autos have produced the highest rates of auto-independence in the world.

The idea you can’t get people not to drive by providing incentives is a departure from reality.

The similarities are weak. Neither process is necessarily pleasant, but both work.

The similarities are weak. Neither process is necessarily pleasant, but both work.

@ 14 Definitely we should try to offer people better transit opportunities. Currently cars are subsidized in so many ways. Adding a variable toll isn’t forcing people out of their cars as much as it is reducing our policy of encouraging people to drive when the roads are packed.

@ 14 Definitely we should try to offer people better transit opportunities. Currently cars are subsidized in so many ways. Adding a variable toll isn’t forcing people out of their cars as much as it is reducing our policy of encouraging people to drive when the roads are packed.

Josh, put your unease to rest. Drivers have never paid for the roads they use in this country. Transit is subsidized as well, of course, but the funding split – at the federal level – is 80/20. Not to mention every other kind of subsidy we throw at cars.

Tolls have to be well designed like anything else, and they don’t work without replacement (transit, walkability). But they get people out of cars, and that’s an unmitigated benefit to a city.

This gets my vote as Stupid Comment of the Day.

Josh, put your unease to rest. Drivers have never paid for the roads they use in this country. Transit is subsidized as well, of course, but the funding split – at the federal level – is 80/20. Not to mention every other kind of subsidy we throw at cars.

Tolls have to be well designed like anything else, and they don’t work without replacement (transit, walkability). But they get people out of cars, and that’s an unmitigated benefit to a city.

This gets my vote as Stupid Comment of the Day.

@9,

If people were taking the bus because the bus was BRT or if the bus was actually a good experience that’d be 1 thing. But w/ tolling they’d be taking the bus (not because of the bus), but because of the disincentive—tolling.

The goal should be to give people reasons to take alternatives to the car—like good mass transit…not toll them out of their cars just so they can be bummed on a slow, unreliable bus.

That’s a false choice.

@9,

If people were taking the bus because the bus was BRT or if the bus was actually a good experience that’d be 1 thing. But w/ tolling they’d be taking the bus (not because of the bus), but because of the disincentive—tolling.

The goal should be to give people reasons to take alternatives to the car—like good mass transit…not toll them out of their cars just so they can be bummed on a slow, unreliable bus.

That’s a false choice.

if limited access highways were tolled dynamically, so that they flowed well, all modes would win. those higihways are congested today during the peak periods and some are congested during off peak times (I-5 southbound and I-90 in reverse peak direction).

the torturee gets nothing but pain. the tollee gets improved speed and reliability. on congested highways, the throughput actually declines. if flow is maintained at 45 mph, the throughput is maximized.

the torturee has no choice; it is coersion. the tollee has the choice of driving at an off peak time with no or lower tolls, taking another route, forming a carpool and sharing the toll, or taking transit.

the analogy is very poor.

transit on a highway that was tolled to optimize flow would also be fastter and more reliable than otherwise.

there are many examples in our market economy of pricing varying by time of day (e.g., movie tickets, plane tickets, restaurants, electricity). highways have market failure due to our failure to price them; it is the tragedy of the commons.

if limited access highways were tolled dynamically, so that they flowed well, all modes would win. those higihways are congested today during the peak periods and some are congested during off peak times (I-5 southbound and I-90 in reverse peak direction).

the torturee gets nothing but pain. the tollee gets improved speed and reliability. on congested highways, the throughput actually declines. if flow is maintained at 45 mph, the throughput is maximized.

the torturee has no choice; it is coersion. the tollee has the choice of driving at an off peak time with no or lower tolls, taking another route, forming a carpool and sharing the toll, or taking transit.

the analogy is very poor.

transit on a highway that was tolled to optimize flow would also be fastter and more reliable than otherwise.

there are many examples in our market economy of pricing varying by time of day (e.g., movie tickets, plane tickets, restaurants, electricity). highways have market failure due to our failure to price them; it is the tragedy of the commons.

@20 – Josh, surprised to see you write that.

@18 – I understand your point of view, but this doesn’t push people out of their cars. It pushes their cars to other areas.

Attracting people out of their cars will be the long-term solution we should be working towards, and the only one that puts Seattle at a competitive advantage to other areas.

@20 – Josh, surprised to see you write that.

@18 – I understand your point of view, but this doesn’t push people out of their cars. It pushes their cars to other areas.

Attracting people out of their cars will be the long-term solution we should be working towards, and the only one that puts Seattle at a competitive advantage to other areas.

@19, considering that the vast majority of people in this country own and drive a car that is just plain wrong. Drivers do pay for roads and help subsidize transit. Of course the few percent that don’t drive subsidize roads to some extent, the returning subsidy is much more.

And really if you buy any goods that travel any distance at all, or if you ever ride a bus you are a user of roads too.

@21 Except of course for the poor people who can’t afford the tolls and live in places not well served by transit.

@19, considering that the vast majority of people in this country own and drive a car that is just plain wrong. Drivers do pay for roads and help subsidize transit. Of course the few percent that don’t drive subsidize roads to some extent, the returning subsidy is much more.

And really if you buy any goods that travel any distance at all, or if you ever ride a bus you are a user of roads too.

@21 Except of course for the poor people who can’t afford the tolls and live in places not well served by transit.

If he is right, perhaps we should invite Dick Cheney to participate in the new McGinn administration

If he is right, perhaps we should invite Dick Cheney to participate in the new McGinn administration

I’ll insert my usual “consider the poor people” comment: Consider a person who works late nights at a hotel or restaurant downtown Seattle. Or downtown Bellevue. Or anywhere ritzy where the person can’t afford to live. At that time of early morning when the person gets off work, the buses don’t run every 15 minutes. How is that person supposed to get to their home which is probably 15 miles away and NOT on Capitol Hill, except by car? If you add 24/7 tolls to the already high gas prices and include the fact that said person probably doesn’t own a hybrid, you’re simply punishing the poor.

Get better transit in place BEFORE you try to starve people out of their cars.

I’ll insert my usual “consider the poor people” comment: Consider a person who works late nights at a hotel or restaurant downtown Seattle. Or downtown Bellevue. Or anywhere ritzy where the person can’t afford to live. At that time of early morning when the person gets off work, the buses don’t run every 15 minutes. How is that person supposed to get to their home which is probably 15 miles away and NOT on Capitol Hill, except by car? If you add 24/7 tolls to the already high gas prices and include the fact that said person probably doesn’t own a hybrid, you’re simply punishing the poor.

Get better transit in place BEFORE you try to starve people out of their cars.

@ 22 Actually a well designed tolling scheme that used the money for additional transit would attract people to Seattle not repel them. Congestion is one of the biggest factors that drives people away. One of the big reasons that Mayor Bloomberg wanted to put a toll on driving into Manhattan is that he feared that London’s congestion pricing was making it much more attractive than NYC for financial firms. Poor people usually have the most time pressures so they benefit from both better highway speeds and better transit

#19 – this long promoted meme that car’s are subsidized has never been shown to be true. Drivers pay gas tax, both local and federal, they pay local sales tax on all car related expenditures, they pay property taxes, they pay license fees and as 80% of the adult population pay the bulk of all income tax.

As was pointed out above all people use the roads for freight movement including getting food to market.

Transit is heavily subsidized as fare box typically pays only 20-30% of operating costs and capital cots are generally paid out of general funds. Transit users make up only a small percentage of those paying into the general fund.

Anti-car advocates make the point that a car costs people a large percentage of their income which translates into the fact that the car culture pays and generates a big part of commerce and therefore generates the revenues that are used to build the infrastructure.

@ 22 Actually a well designed tolling scheme that used the money for additional transit would attract people to Seattle not repel them. Congestion is one of the biggest factors that drives people away. One of the big reasons that Mayor Bloomberg wanted to put a toll on driving into Manhattan is that he feared that London’s congestion pricing was making it much more attractive than NYC for financial firms. Poor people usually have the most time pressures so they benefit from both better highway speeds and better transit

#19 – this long promoted meme that car’s are subsidized has never been shown to be true. Drivers pay gas tax, both local and federal, they pay local sales tax on all car related expenditures, they pay property taxes, they pay license fees and as 80% of the adult population pay the bulk of all income tax.

As was pointed out above all people use the roads for freight movement including getting food to market.

Transit is heavily subsidized as fare box typically pays only 20-30% of operating costs and capital cots are generally paid out of general funds. Transit users make up only a small percentage of those paying into the general fund.

Anti-car advocates make the point that a car costs people a large percentage of their income which translates into the fact that the car culture pays and generates a big part of commerce and therefore generates the revenues that are used to build the infrastructure.

It’s not a point I wanted to make, but disincentives are a negative, regressive approach to getting what you want. You want to get people on your side, but penalizing them isn’t how you win people over.

Tolls have their benefits. Being a disincentive to using the road isn’t one of them.

It’s not a point I wanted to make, but disincentives are a negative, regressive approach to getting what you want. You want to get people on your side, but penalizing them isn’t how you win people over.

Tolls have their benefits. Being a disincentive to using the road isn’t one of them.

@26, Ok, you’ve sold me, I would hate to think that bankers and wall street types would be stuck in traffic when they have an economy to destroy. Kidding, kind of.

And yes poor people have time pressures, but they also lack money. And any system that is going to reduce congestion is going to have to be expensive enough to reduce demand, and therefor a large burden on the poor.

New York and London have impressive transit systems that connect lots of neighborhoods. When we get that I will happily support congestion pricing, but when it takes 30 minutes by bus to go the mile and half from my house to downtown the system is not working.

@26, Ok, you’ve sold me, I would hate to think that bankers and wall street types would be stuck in traffic when they have an economy to destroy. Kidding, kind of.

And yes poor people have time pressures, but they also lack money. And any system that is going to reduce congestion is going to have to be expensive enough to reduce demand, and therefor a large burden on the poor.

New York and London have impressive transit systems that connect lots of neighborhoods. When we get that I will happily support congestion pricing, but when it takes 30 minutes by bus to go the mile and half from my house to downtown the system is not working.

This comment is nonsense. And poorly punctuated.

This comment is nonsense. And poorly punctuated.

@225 Where is that money for transit going to come from. If history is any guide it will be the sales tax. That will hurt a lot more poor people than tolling would.

@225 Where is that money for transit going to come from. If history is any guide it will be the sales tax. That will hurt a lot more poor people than tolling would.

It’s a bullshit point anyways, and tossing the torture quip in there is imflammatory or dramatic and therefore makes it a stupid comment. Surprising from someone who invokes the “Russians used a pencil” anecdote on his own page. Fortunately, your comment at 28 steadies the boat a bit.

A toll isn’t proposed as a purposeful disincentive to use the subject road. It’s a proposed revenue source to help pay for the project. That it might discourage some from actually using the thing because they don’t want to pay to use it is a matter of their response to a choice. But it would be a so-called “perverse” result as exercising that response would be contrary to WSDOT’s intent to raise revenue through tolling.

Sarah @25, please don’t forget that one of the huge failings of the proposed tunnel is that it doesn’t serve downtown at all, but is instead meant to bypass the city. So without surface and transit improvements, noone who works downtown is served by it.

30. TBH I think either Josh added that comma or that was some sort of typo. I know better than to spice a comma like that.

It’s a bullshit point anyways, and tossing the torture quip in there is imflammatory or dramatic and therefore makes it a stupid comment. Surprising from someone who invokes the “Russians used a pencil” anecdote on his own page. Fortunately, your comment at 28 steadies the boat a bit.

A toll isn’t proposed as a purposeful disincentive to use the subject road. It’s a proposed revenue source to help pay for the project. That it might discourage some from actually using the thing because they don’t want to pay to use it is a matter of their response to a choice. But it would be a so-called “perverse” result as exercising that response would be contrary to WSDOT’s intent to raise revenue through tolling.

Sarah @25, please don’t forget that one of the huge failings of the proposed tunnel is that it doesn’t serve downtown at all, but is instead meant to bypass the city. So without surface and transit improvements, noone who works downtown is served by it.

30. TBH I think either Josh added that comma or that was some sort of typo. I know better than to spice a comma like that.

you’re all missing the point. the point is really simple. getting someone to change their habits by slapping them in the face is a *stupid* as torturing someone to get “truth”.

if you want someone to change their habits, give them a better alternative, not punishment.

you’re all missing the point. the point is really simple. getting someone to change their habits by slapping them in the face is a *stupid* as torturing someone to get “truth”.

if you want someone to change their habits, give them a better alternative, not punishment.

32. Here’s the conundrum with tolling a road. It turns out it does discourage people from using the road. However, it’s also designed to serve as a revenue source. In charging to use the road, fewer people use it. Assuming alternatives to using it become attractive (the top urbanist argument for imposing tolls), fewer people use the road, and toll revenue from the road dries up, and then you can’t pay for the project.

32. Here’s the conundrum with tolling a road. It turns out it does discourage people from using the road. However, it’s also designed to serve as a revenue source. In charging to use the road, fewer people use it. Assuming alternatives to using it become attractive (the top urbanist argument for imposing tolls), fewer people use the road, and toll revenue from the road dries up, and then you can’t pay for the project.

I really don’t get this war between car and transit folks in Seattle. Ultimately both modes of transportation are about getting people from one place to another, usually for very good reasons like making enough money to live in the neighborhood they want to. Can’t we just get along?

I really don’t get this war between car and transit folks in Seattle. Ultimately both modes of transportation are about getting people from one place to another, usually for very good reasons like making enough money to live in the neighborhood they want to. Can’t we just get along?

On equity and impacts to the less wealthy -
If toll revenue could go to transit and transit infrastructure, then the wealthier would be subsidizing bus rides AND buses would be going as fast as the cars.

Project data (like SR 167) are showing that the poor use tolled routes as much as do the wealthy. This is in part, because poorer folks need to show up to work on time and need to pick up their kids from day car on time.

Making transit attractive is much more expensive so long as we’re still subsidizing vehicle use. Focus on the comparative costs as seen by the user and the comparative benefits as seen by the user. Subsidizing both sides of the equation is more expensive

@25 tolling will vary by time of day and hopefully by level of congestion, too. Late at night, the toll will be at its lowest. With the use of electronic payment through prepaid accounts (just as they use on the Narrows bridge), it’s very easy to subsidize tolling for those who, say, are receiving food ‘stamps’ through an account.

@22 David, tolling leads to some trips disappearing and some moving elsewhere and some shifting mode.

Gomez – it’s time you read about tolling theory and results from existing projects.

On equity and impacts to the less wealthy -
If toll revenue could go to transit and transit infrastructure, then the wealthier would be subsidizing bus rides AND buses would be going as fast as the cars.

Project data (like SR 167) are showing that the poor use tolled routes as much as do the wealthy. This is in part, because poorer folks need to show up to work on time and need to pick up their kids from day car on time.

Making transit attractive is much more expensive so long as we’re still subsidizing vehicle use. Focus on the comparative costs as seen by the user and the comparative benefits as seen by the user. Subsidizing both sides of the equation is more expensive

@25 tolling will vary by time of day and hopefully by level of congestion, too. Late at night, the toll will be at its lowest. With the use of electronic payment through prepaid accounts (just as they use on the Narrows bridge), it’s very easy to subsidize tolling for those who, say, are receiving food ‘stamps’ through an account.

@22 David, tolling leads to some trips disappearing and some moving elsewhere and some shifting mode.

Gomez – it’s time you read about tolling theory and results from existing projects.

I’ll add that I don’t necessarily oppose tolling. If anything, I’m okay with tolling the tunnel and a rebuilt 520 to help offset some of the funding needs for each project.

However, my main point is that tolling’s ‘disincentive to driving’ is not a benefit and shouldn’t be cited as such.

I’ll add that I don’t necessarily oppose tolling. If anything, I’m okay with tolling the tunnel and a rebuilt 520 to help offset some of the funding needs for each project.

However, my main point is that tolling’s ‘disincentive to driving’ is not a benefit and shouldn’t be cited as such.

We have numerous disincentives to NOT driving, and a range of local, state, and federal policies and spending priorities that make driving a necessary, sometimes the only, choice for many people.

We don’t frame that as a “disincentive to take the bus” because we’ve all internalized the notion that using a car for every trip we make is the natural order of things, and anything else is an unnatural impediment on that.

The reality is that when people talk about tolling and finding ways for people to drive less and take transit more often, it’s really a discussion of shifting incentives and disincentives, not about creating new ones where none previously existed.

As to the impact of these incentives on the working population, well, they’re the ones hit hardest by this system, because many of them are either denied a true choice, or are forced to rely on something they risk not being able to afford (driving) or risk not having be reliable (buses).

Prior to World War II, most of Seattle’s working population didn’t own a car, and had no need of owning a car. They lived near their urban jobs and could take a streetcar or use their feet. The incentives, disincentives, and land use choices made during the 1950s and 1960s ended that. We can reproduce those options by again reorienting our policy choices.

We have numerous disincentives to NOT driving, and a range of local, state, and federal policies and spending priorities that make driving a necessary, sometimes the only, choice for many people.

We don’t frame that as a “disincentive to take the bus” because we’ve all internalized the notion that using a car for every trip we make is the natural order of things, and anything else is an unnatural impediment on that.

The reality is that when people talk about tolling and finding ways for people to drive less and take transit more often, it’s really a discussion of shifting incentives and disincentives, not about creating new ones where none previously existed.

As to the impact of these incentives on the working population, well, they’re the ones hit hardest by this system, because many of them are either denied a true choice, or are forced to rely on something they risk not being able to afford (driving) or risk not having be reliable (buses).

Prior to World War II, most of Seattle’s working population didn’t own a car, and had no need of owning a car. They lived near their urban jobs and could take a streetcar or use their feet. The incentives, disincentives, and land use choices made during the 1950s and 1960s ended that. We can reproduce those options by again reorienting our policy choices.

what a bunch of crybabies crying about tolling a highway or two, boo hoo.

“it’s torture for me to pay $3….boo hoo for me”!

what a bunch of crybabies crying about tolling a highway or two, boo hoo.

“it’s torture for me to pay $3….boo hoo for me”!

Gomez, you keep saying that a “disincentive to driving” is not a benefit. In what universe is that true? Driving is a huge cause of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Washington has laws on the books now to limit those emissions and to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled. Given that, anything we can do to provide a disincentive to driving is a positive benefit. Yes, yes, we need to provide alternatives, sure, but this idea that disincentives are bed and incentives are good is like saying children or pets only respond to positive reinforcement. This is clearly untrue: people need both positive and negative reinforcement to change behavior. It is not enough to make an awesome public transit system–people will still drive if it is convenient. We should be doing whatever we can to make driving more inconvenient and make public transit, walking, and biking more convenient. That is, if you care about the environment and urbanism.

Gomez, you keep saying that a “disincentive to driving” is not a benefit. In what universe is that true? Driving is a huge cause of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Washington has laws on the books now to limit those emissions and to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled. Given that, anything we can do to provide a disincentive to driving is a positive benefit. Yes, yes, we need to provide alternatives, sure, but this idea that disincentives are bed and incentives are good is like saying children or pets only respond to positive reinforcement. This is clearly untrue: people need both positive and negative reinforcement to change behavior. It is not enough to make an awesome public transit system–people will still drive if it is convenient. We should be doing whatever we can to make driving more inconvenient and make public transit, walking, and biking more convenient. That is, if you care about the environment and urbanism.

Let’s put it this way, Zef: If everyone in Seattle stopped driving tomorrow, the arctic ice would still melt and the polar bears would still die, because everyone else in the world would continue with their emissions.

The environmental argument for tolling is a red herring, because the practice is so disconnected from any impact on the intended goal that there is no marginal utility in that regard, certainly not enough to warrant negative intentions towards driving and drivers.

In fact, I’m surprised it took 41 comments for someone to play the save-the-environment card in this thread.

Let’s put it this way, Zef: If everyone in Seattle stopped driving tomorrow, the arctic ice would still melt and the polar bears would still die, because everyone else in the world would continue with their emissions.

The environmental argument for tolling is a red herring, because the practice is so disconnected from any impact on the intended goal that there is no marginal utility in that regard, certainly not enough to warrant negative intentions towards driving and drivers.

In fact, I’m surprised it took 41 comments for someone to play the save-the-environment card in this thread.

If everyone in the WORLD stopped driving tomorrow, the polar ice caps would still melt and the polar bears (and other animals) would eventually die. I can’t speak science but it’s not a direct cause/effect thing. The degradation set in motion is entropic; it doesn’t stop just because we stop doing things that initially set it in motion. Somebody put that in science language, please.

If everyone in the WORLD stopped driving tomorrow, the polar ice caps would still melt and the polar bears (and other animals) would eventually die. I can’t speak science but it’s not a direct cause/effect thing. The degradation set in motion is entropic; it doesn’t stop just because we stop doing things that initially set it in motion. Somebody put that in science language, please.

A side note re sources of revenue for more transit and other good things: the sales tax is technically regressive but not quite as hard on poor people as you would think on the face of it. As Diana Pearce/UW points out (she just completed an update of the Self Sufficiency Standard for Washington State (on-line in PDF form), poor families don’t usually buy much besides absolute necessities like food, which isn’t taxed now. The people it hits most are those who can afford to buy a huge home entertainment system or an SUV. We’re accustomed to thinking sales tax = regressive, but it depends on buying patterns, and those usually depend on a family’s income. More income, more stuff bought.

A side note re sources of revenue for more transit and other good things: the sales tax is technically regressive but not quite as hard on poor people as you would think on the face of it. As Diana Pearce/UW points out (she just completed an update of the Self Sufficiency Standard for Washington State (on-line in PDF form), poor families don’t usually buy much besides absolute necessities like food, which isn’t taxed now. The people it hits most are those who can afford to buy a huge home entertainment system or an SUV. We’re accustomed to thinking sales tax = regressive, but it depends on buying patterns, and those usually depend on a family’s income. More income, more stuff bought.

Sarah’s got a good point with the sales tax thing. Sales tax is proportional to what you buy: If you spend relatively little, you’re going to pay relatively little. And when it’s raised, it doesn’t hit your $2 and $3 purchases all that much… but you’ll probably notice with $200, $3000, $40,000 purchases. But at that point, if you can afford such purchases, you can probably handle it.

As for the ice caps issue (and not to trivialize climate change, which is a real global issue)… if you’re going to have any chance of stopping the environmental pollution and globally warming emissions that is believed to accelerate climate change, you’ve got to stop problems like this. And we really have no control over most of that, especially with a growing world power like China that for the most part doesn’t care all that much what we think of their practices.

Sarah’s got a good point with the sales tax thing. Sales tax is proportional to what you buy: If you spend relatively little, you’re going to pay relatively little. And when it’s raised, it doesn’t hit your $2 and $3 purchases all that much… but you’ll probably notice with $200, $3000, $40,000 purchases. But at that point, if you can afford such purchases, you can probably handle it.

As for the ice caps issue (and not to trivialize climate change, which is a real global issue)… if you’re going to have any chance of stopping the environmental pollution and globally warming emissions that is believed to accelerate climate change, you’ve got to stop problems like this. And we really have no control over most of that, especially with a growing world power like China that for the most part doesn’t care all that much what we think of their practices.

1. we won’t be able to convince china of anything if we don’t get our own act together folks.

are you guys planning on having the next generation look back on people like you, and seeing only evil, ignorant, greedy stupid pigs?

Kinda the way we look back on slave owners today?

That’s what you stand for folks.

2. Part of the evidence of your depravity is the wilfull blindness to obvious facts, for example:

tolls are needed to pay for the thing, so there’s zero possibiliy of not having tolls,

the tolls do reduce the volume, so if the benefit of the current viaduct is 100000 trips a day a replacement that is only 45000 trips a day is like only half of the benefit;

and so bringing it up is “rational behaciour” as opposed to the irrantional whiny selfish junk you guys are spreading.

3. AS to the cost side……also part of a benefit/cost a/k/a “rational” approach….
Brightwater now at double the cost….they just added long delays….they still don’t know how long to fix those 17 foot boring machines……
wow that’s just a 17 foot bore, not 54 feet.

Soooo the point is….willful ignorance of massive foreseeable risk = AIG finance plan = depraved, stupid, evil, selfish, etc.

And that is without even considering enviro costs, Im just talking about dollar costs and mobility benefit so far!

Ciao polluters….

1. we won’t be able to convince china of anything if we don’t get our own act together folks.

are you guys planning on having the next generation look back on people like you, and seeing only evil, ignorant, greedy stupid pigs?

Kinda the way we look back on slave owners today?

That’s what you stand for folks.

2. Part of the evidence of your depravity is the wilfull blindness to obvious facts, for example:

tolls are needed to pay for the thing, so there’s zero possibiliy of not having tolls,

the tolls do reduce the volume, so if the benefit of the current viaduct is 100000 trips a day a replacement that is only 45000 trips a day is like only half of the benefit;

and so bringing it up is “rational behaciour” as opposed to the irrantional whiny selfish junk you guys are spreading.

3. AS to the cost side……also part of a benefit/cost a/k/a “rational” approach….
Brightwater now at double the cost….they just added long delays….they still don’t know how long to fix those 17 foot boring machines……
wow that’s just a 17 foot bore, not 54 feet.

Soooo the point is….willful ignorance of massive foreseeable risk = AIG finance plan = depraved, stupid, evil, selfish, etc.

And that is without even considering enviro costs, Im just talking about dollar costs and mobility benefit so far!

Ciao polluters….

You’re just trolling, I know, but I’ll humor this.

1. China doesn’t care either way. They really don’t. We could be squeaky clean as a nation and they wouldn’t care about cleaning up their act. There’s too much money for their industries to make for them to hamstring their efforts with environmental concerns.

2. Nobody’s arguing that there should be no tolls. The discussion concerns citing the validity of tolls as a ‘disincentive to driving’.

3. I’m not sure what exactly you’re trying to argue in citing the Brightwater delays as if it’s at all relevant to the SR 99 project, but you’re just posting this to troll anyway so whatever.

You’re just trolling, I know, but I’ll humor this.

1. China doesn’t care either way. They really don’t. We could be squeaky clean as a nation and they wouldn’t care about cleaning up their act. There’s too much money for their industries to make for them to hamstring their efforts with environmental concerns.

2. Nobody’s arguing that there should be no tolls. The discussion concerns citing the validity of tolls as a ‘disincentive to driving’.

3. I’m not sure what exactly you’re trying to argue in citing the Brightwater delays as if it’s at all relevant to the SR 99 project, but you’re just posting this to troll anyway so whatever.

@ 44,45 I guess the fact that Washington states tax burden is harder on poor families than any other state in the country is unrelated to the fact that it is funded heavily by sales tax.

@ 44,45 I guess the fact that Washington states tax burden is harder on poor families than any other state in the country is unrelated to the fact that it is funded heavily by sales tax.

WA’s tax burden is harder on poor families because additional sales taxes are imposed on residents in the Seattle area. The WA sales tax itself is relatively average. Seattle kills the curve.

WA’s tax burden is harder on poor families because additional sales taxes are imposed on residents in the Seattle area. The WA sales tax itself is relatively average. Seattle kills the curve.

@2 But it is not a good analogy for reasons that are obvious