Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Study Shows Tolls Would Cut Cars in Tunnel 40 Percent

http://westseattleblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/crossection.jpg

According to a new study by the state department of transportation (WSDOT), charging a toll of between $3.50 and $4 at rush hour would cut traffic on the proposed waterfront tunnel by as much as 39 percent below traffic levels that are anticipated without a toll. That finding could raise questions about whether a waterfront freeway is needed at all.

Because higher tolls provide an incentive for people to choose alternatives to driving (or combine trips, or avoid driving altogether), the higher the toll, the fewer cars there are on the road. Significantly, the study also found that tolling a new tunnel would not lead most drivers to divert to other routes, one of the more common arguments against tolling: “If a toll is charged to use the tunnel, traffic model analysis shows that some traffic would divert from the tunnel to local streets and Interstate 5, but travel times would stay the same or increase slightly,” the study found.

“[T]olling would result in little or no change to travel times for trips to and through downtown Seattle. Due to the little or no change to travel times, WSDOT is not recommending mitigation for diversion from the tunnel.”

Higher tolls also lead to lower revenues, but even the highest toll WSDOT is considering would fully fund the tolling portion of viaduct replacement.

The study, which looked at five different tolling scenarios, found that three of those scenarios would produce more than the $400 million the state legislature directed the department to come up with through tolling. Specifically, the study found that average daily tolls of $2.24 would produce revenue of up to $460 million; average tolls of $2.90 would produce revenue of up to $406 million; and average tolls of $2.58 would produce revenue of up to $439 million.

Of course, the fact that tolls reduce vehicle traffic so substantially raises an obvious question: If people don’t actually need a new waterfront freeway (that is, if a modest toll makes people decide not to drive or to use other routes), why should we spend $4.2 billion building one?

I have calls out to tunnel opponent Cary Moon of the People’s Waterfront Coalition and Mayor Mike McGinn, another tunnel opponent, to find out their answers to that question.




  • Giffy

    I have calls out to tunnel opponent Cary Moon of the People’s Waterfront Coalition and Mayor Mike McGinn, another tunnel opponent, to find out their answers to that question.

    Nothing like balancing one side with itself! How about talking to people critical of the study’s methodology or who have arguments for why it is needed such a freight and the remaining 60% of trips?

  • Giffy

    I have calls out to tunnel opponent Cary Moon of the People’s Waterfront Coalition and Mayor Mike McGinn, another tunnel opponent, to find out their answers to that question.

    Nothing like balancing one side with itself! How about talking to people critical of the study’s methodology or who have arguments for why it is needed such a freight and the remaining 60% of trips?

  • Matt the Engineer

    How about this: Go ahead and let the state pay for the thing, but instead of building it take this money and give everyone in Seattle that would have driven an anti-toll for taking the bus. $3B / ~100k people* = $30,000 anti toll per person.

    * (numbers completely made up – I’m too lazy to look up numbers just for this comment)

  • Matt the Engineer

    How about this: Go ahead and let the state pay for the thing, but instead of building it take this money and give everyone in Seattle that would have driven an anti-toll for taking the bus. $3B / ~100k people* = $30,000 anti toll per person.

    * (numbers completely made up – I’m too lazy to look up numbers just for this comment)

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I really am increasingly curious about the legal viability of a class-action or multi-party lawsuit versus the city and state to block the aspect of this that puts the City of Seattle on the hook for cost overruns, without voter approval.

  • http://joeszilagyi.com Joe Szilagyi

    I really am increasingly curious about the legal viability of a class-action or multi-party lawsuit versus the city and state to block the aspect of this that puts the City of Seattle on the hook for cost overruns, without voter approval.

  • Michael J. Maddux

    Shouldn’t this be a “C is for Crank” post?

    And 39 percent is not the same as 40 percent.

    But, to the point, you’re again missing the big picture. Do you really think the same reduction would be had without a north-south freeway, and without hurting the local economy?

    Additionally, this will be a perfect opportunity for Seattleites to begin to get used to tolling. I’m sure, as an anti-car advocate, you would support system-wide tolling. As a pro-car advocate, I sure as shit do. With the tolls on 99 and 520, it will be a good start to hopefully getting tolling throughout the Seattle area on local freeways and major arterials. It’s a good thing.

    And ditto what Giffy said. Josh promised a dose of objectivity, and that is clearly not going to happen when you only call opponents of the project.

  • Michael J. Maddux

    Shouldn’t this be a “C is for Crank” post?

    And 39 percent is not the same as 40 percent.

    But, to the point, you’re again missing the big picture. Do you really think the same reduction would be had without a north-south freeway, and without hurting the local economy?

    Additionally, this will be a perfect opportunity for Seattleites to begin to get used to tolling. I’m sure, as an anti-car advocate, you would support system-wide tolling. As a pro-car advocate, I sure as shit do. With the tolls on 99 and 520, it will be a good start to hopefully getting tolling throughout the Seattle area on local freeways and major arterials. It’s a good thing.

    And ditto what Giffy said. Josh promised a dose of objectivity, and that is clearly not going to happen when you only call opponents of the project.

  • Soapboxin’

    Litigation! Awesome! Great use of time and resources!

  • Soapboxin’

    Litigation! Awesome! Great use of time and resources!

  • Good Grief

    McGinn is in DC on some boondoggle, right? I wonder if he rented a bike while he is there? And indeed, “up to 39″ does not equal 40, but ECB is never bothered by such details.

  • Good Grief

    McGinn is in DC on some boondoggle, right? I wonder if he rented a bike while he is there? And indeed, “up to 39″ does not equal 40, but ECB is never bothered by such details.

  • unrepentant liberal

    “Giffy” is right. Nothing like talking only to people who agree with you. It works great for Fox. Good work Erica!
    Isn’t a reduction in car trips a beneficial result of tolling? And isn’t a reduction in the number of cars in the tunnel helpful because the tunnel has less capacity than the current viaduct?
    Enough already. Build the d*** thing and stop dithering!

  • Mike

    Did they bother to ask how many people would commute a few extra miles to drive the 5 instead? I’d wager to guess half of that 39%.

  • unrepentant liberal

    “Giffy” is right. Nothing like talking only to people who agree with you. It works great for Fox. Good work Erica!
    Isn’t a reduction in car trips a beneficial result of tolling? And isn’t a reduction in the number of cars in the tunnel helpful because the tunnel has less capacity than the current viaduct?
    Enough already. Build the d*** thing and stop dithering!

  • Mike

    Did they bother to ask how many people would commute a few extra miles to drive the 5 instead? I’d wager to guess half of that 39%.

  • Mikos

    Without systemic tolling it’s hard to make the tunnel tolling truly work. Ironically, like tobacco taxes, attempts to get people out of cars will only hurt tolling revenues. I do wonder if we should give a tunnel-less, viaduct-less waterfront a shot and see how bad traffic really is. Easy for me to say, since I live in the north-end and rarely head south. But if we pump up the bus routes and make cycling a little friendlier, perhaps it could work…

  • Mikos

    Without systemic tolling it’s hard to make the tunnel tolling truly work. Ironically, like tobacco taxes, attempts to get people out of cars will only hurt tolling revenues. I do wonder if we should give a tunnel-less, viaduct-less waterfront a shot and see how bad traffic really is. Easy for me to say, since I live in the north-end and rarely head south. But if we pump up the bus routes and make cycling a little friendlier, perhaps it could work…

  • http://seattletransitblog.com/ Ben Schiendelman

    This doesn’t make sense. 40% looks too low.

    In October, we reported that WSDOT’s 2008 tolling study showed 40% diversion for tolls equivalent to the “E” tolling pricing. Inflation certainly doesn’t account for the difference.

    http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/26/viaduct-tolling-tailored-for-the-tunnel/

  • http://seattletransitblog.com Ben Schiendelman

    This doesn’t make sense. 40% looks too low.

    In October, we reported that WSDOT’s 2008 tolling study showed 40% diversion for tolls equivalent to the “E” tolling pricing. Inflation certainly doesn’t account for the difference.

    http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/26/viaduct-tolling-tailored-for-the-tunnel/

  • Jane

    First the toll reduces traffic. It doesn’t make it disappear completely which is the conclusion Erica seems to be drawing. Second I use the viaduct to get to Tacoma from N Seattle. Biking and the bus aren’t practical (taking the kids to see family- not commuting). I’d be happy to pay $2 to $4 toll. The surface street option will result in complete gridlock trying to get through Seattle.

  • Jane

    First the toll reduces traffic. It doesn’t make it disappear completely which is the conclusion Erica seems to be drawing. Second I use the viaduct to get to Tacoma from N Seattle. Biking and the bus aren’t practical (taking the kids to see family- not commuting). I’d be happy to pay $2 to $4 toll. The surface street option will result in complete gridlock trying to get through Seattle.

  • Matt the Engineer

    [Jane] why isn’t the bus (or Sounder! kids love trains) not practical? If it’s within commute hours, there should be buses. If it’s outside commute hours, then driving on I-5 shouldn’t be an issue.

  • Matt the Engineer

    [Jane] why isn’t the bus (or Sounder! kids love trains) not practical? If it’s within commute hours, there should be buses. If it’s outside commute hours, then driving on I-5 shouldn’t be an issue.

  • serial catowner

    Well, I for one, will be unable to eat or sleep until I find out whether McGinn agrees with Erica that maybe the tunnel shouldn’t be built.

    Oh, wait….

  • serial catowner

    Well, I for one, will be unable to eat or sleep until I find out whether McGinn agrees with Erica that maybe the tunnel shouldn’t be built.

    Oh, wait….

  • Giffy

    @Matt I know I wouldn’t take the bus. Based on a trip planner search getting from say Tacoma to Ballard right now would require a half hour wait for the bus then an hour and half trip. I would be there are at five and it would cost me over 5 dollars a person for adults and 1.50 for kids.

    Thats more expensive and much less convenient than driving. Taking I-5 though Seattle and then north, especially without the viaduct is a mess.

  • Giffy

    @Matt I know I wouldn’t take the bus. Based on a trip planner search getting from say Tacoma to Ballard right now would require a half hour wait for the bus then an hour and half trip. I would be there are at five and it would cost me over 5 dollars a person for adults and 1.50 for kids.

    Thats more expensive and much less convenient than driving. Taking I-5 though Seattle and then north, especially without the viaduct is a mess.

  • Matt the Engineer

    [Giffy] You are seriously underestimating how much it costs to drive. I typed Ballard to Federal Way into Google (sadly this feature doesn’t cover Tacoma yet) and it estimates $18.14 each direction to drive.

    Is it really worth the $30k per person to you to save a few minutes on this drive? Actually, Google tells me it’s faster to take I-5 than the viaduct (1 hour 10 min vs. 1 hour 20 min, both including traffic).

  • Matt the Engineer

    [Giffy] You are seriously underestimating how much it costs to drive. I typed Ballard to Federal Way into Google (sadly this feature doesn’t cover Tacoma yet) and it estimates $18.14 each direction to drive.

    Is it really worth the $30k per person to you to save a few minutes on this drive? Actually, Google tells me it’s faster to take I-5 than the viaduct (1 hour 10 min vs. 1 hour 20 min, both including traffic).

  • Mr. X

    $18.14 each way? Even at $3/gallon, it wouldn’t cost that in my ’77 Suburban, let alone my 80′s econobox.

  • Mr. X

    $18.14 each way? Even at $3/gallon, it wouldn’t cost that in my ’77 Suburban, let alone my 80′s econobox.

  • Mr. X

    …and Google is flat wrong regarding the AWV – as it most definitely usually saves time vs. I-5 if your trip is on the west side of Seattle and you are trying to bypass downtown (and even more so during typical peak hour traffic).

    SR 599 is your friend – use it.

  • Mr. X

    …and Google is flat wrong regarding the AWV – as it most definitely usually saves time vs. I-5 if your trip is on the west side of Seattle and you are trying to bypass downtown (and even more so during typical peak hour traffic).

    SR 599 is your friend – use it.

  • Matt the Engineer

    //$18.14 each way? Even at $3/gallon, it wouldn’t cost that in my ‘77 Suburban, let alone my 80’s econobox.//
    (smacks forehead)
    Your fuel cost is only a little piece of the costs of driving. There’s the depreciated value of your car for every mile you drive, maintenance, cleaning, tires… And I doubt Google even considers externalities or accidents.
    Here’s a little post I put together about how a long commute will cost you half a million dollars over 30 years and 24% of your waking non-working life.

  • Matt the Engineer

    //$18.14 each way? Even at $3/gallon, it wouldn’t cost that in my ‘77 Suburban, let alone my 80’s econobox.//
    (smacks forehead)
    Your fuel cost is only a little piece of the costs of driving. There’s the depreciated value of your car for every mile you drive, maintenance, cleaning, tires… And I doubt Google even considers externalities or accidents.
    Here’s a little post I put together about how a long commute will cost you half a million dollars over 30 years and 24% of your waking non-working life.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    I am thinking that Erica and I are not reading page 5 the same way.

    Please, community of complainers, help us read page 5.

    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3FBD89BD-FCE8-4769-BF4A-5C4CB95C7FD9/0/SR99_Cost_Tolling_Summary_Jan10.pdf

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    I am thinking that Erica and I are not reading page 5 the same way.

    Please, community of complainers, help us read page 5.

    http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3FBD89BD-FCE8-4769-BF4A-5C4CB95C7FD9/0/SR99_Cost_Tolling_Summary_Jan10.pdf

  • Mr. X

    Their depreciation schedule on a 1977 vehicle that is owned free and clear – not to mention the fact that my insurance costs are both very low and represent a flat fee – which is incrementally reduced the MORE I drive – is patently absurd, and makes me seriously doubt the rest of their methodology, as well.

    Unless you’re back east riding commuter rail into NYC (or some similar situation) that long commute will suck up a whole lot more of your waking non-working life on mass transit that it will in an SOV. I’m not saying that’s good, just that it IS.

    Given that reality (and around here, it still largely IS a reality), you might want to figure the value of people’s time into your cost/benefit equation, as well…

  • Mr. X

    Their depreciation schedule on a 1977 vehicle that is owned free and clear – not to mention the fact that my insurance costs are both very low and represent a flat fee – which is incrementally reduced the MORE I drive – is patently absurd, and makes me seriously doubt the rest of their methodology, as well.

    Unless you’re back east riding commuter rail into NYC (or some similar situation) that long commute will suck up a whole lot more of your waking non-working life on mass transit that it will in an SOV. I’m not saying that’s good, just that it IS.

    Given that reality (and around here, it still largely IS a reality), you might want to figure the value of people’s time into your cost/benefit equation, as well…

  • Matt the Engineer

    [X] Did you click on my link? I compared living in the city to the exubs. Surely you’re not claiming it takes me more time to commute 2 miles than 100 miles because I take the bus.

    As for your Suburban, unless the replacement cost is zero every mile you drive that thing it’s a step closer to the grave and you’re a step closer to buying another car. I’m not sure if Google considers insurance, but I highly doubt they charge you less on your insurance for driving more. I called my company and told them the number of miles I drive and they reduced my rate.

  • Matt the Engineer

    [X] Did you click on my link? I compared living in the city to the exubs. Surely you’re not claiming it takes me more time to commute 2 miles than 100 miles because I take the bus.

    As for your Suburban, unless the replacement cost is zero every mile you drive that thing it’s a step closer to the grave and you’re a step closer to buying another car. I’m not sure if Google considers insurance, but I highly doubt they charge you less on your insurance for driving more. I called my company and told them the number of miles I drive and they reduced my rate.

  • Mr. X

    Matt the Engineer,

    Yup, I did so after I posted – and you’re right, it’s definitely an apples to oranges comparison (I was looking more at someone around here who commutes from, say, Fremont to Redmond for work).

    My insurance – which is based on pretty low annual mileage – is a flat rate – regardless of whether I drive or not. When the ‘burban dies (which probably won’t happen for 2-3 years at the earliest – I bought it from a mechanic who had put a rebuilt engine in it), I’ll replace it with another pre-owned vehicle that I will pay cash for (most likely for less than $1000).

    I stand by my original statement – Googles estimated cost for going to/from Tacoma is patently absurd – as are most vehicle ownership annual cost estimates, which pretty much are all predicated the cost of financing/insuring/maintaining a new car. Buy used and it’s orders of magnitude less.

  • Mr. X

    Matt the Engineer,

    Yup, I did so after I posted – and you’re right, it’s definitely an apples to oranges comparison (I was looking more at someone around here who commutes from, say, Fremont to Redmond for work).

    My insurance – which is based on pretty low annual mileage – is a flat rate – regardless of whether I drive or not. When the ‘burban dies (which probably won’t happen for 2-3 years at the earliest – I bought it from a mechanic who had put a rebuilt engine in it), I’ll replace it with another pre-owned vehicle that I will pay cash for (most likely for less than $1000).

    I stand by my original statement – Googles estimated cost for going to/from Tacoma is patently absurd – as are most vehicle ownership annual cost estimates, which pretty much are all predicated the cost of financing/insuring/maintaining a new car. Buy used and it’s orders of magnitude less.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    If I drive Seattle to Everett (home to work location) it is 35 minutes door to door, by bus 90 minutes.

    I am hoping the common Orca car will allow for better commuter pattern data.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    If I drive Seattle to Everett (home to work location) it is 35 minutes door to door, by bus 90 minutes.

    I am hoping the common Orca car will allow for better commuter pattern data.

  • Giffy

    @Matt if my car was costing me 30k per person I would be living in a dumpster. I bought a reliable couple year old car almost a 7 or 8 years ago now. I take care of it, it gets good gas millage, and I’ll probably drive it another couple years till I sell it and buy another couple year old car(unless I get frisky and grab a Volt). Sorry but google’s estimate is no where near accurate. the cost of the car is incurred and honesty the incidental wear form a 40 mile trip is negligible. We are talking a gallon and half to 2 gallons of gas which is about six bucks and maybe a couple more in maintenance costs.

    And even if it was 2 adults and two kids on the bus would equal about 14 bucks each way. 4 bucks more and I have over an hour when traffic is good. Even when its not I am saving 45 minutes. Plus I am assured of a seat, have room to stash a stroller, stuff I might buy, etc.

    The bus sucks ass. Give me more rail based transit and we can talk, but I’m not putting up with the bus just so I can spend more.

    The above is hypothetical, but my real commute is about 2 miles each way from the South end of CD to First Hill. By bus I would have to leave my house an hour before work and get there a half an hour early. I can walk in 30 or drive to the last free unlimited parking before work on Yesler and walk for 10 minutes. I tend to split between the two. The bus was also way to damn expensive.

    I am with you though on long commutes. I don’t know how or why people do it. Seems like a huge waste. I do however understand the need to occasionally drive to places somewhat far away as I have friends and family around the region. Doing that is not the same thing.

  • Giffy

    @Matt if my car was costing me 30k per person I would be living in a dumpster. I bought a reliable couple year old car almost a 7 or 8 years ago now. I take care of it, it gets good gas millage, and I’ll probably drive it another couple years till I sell it and buy another couple year old car(unless I get frisky and grab a Volt). Sorry but google’s estimate is no where near accurate. the cost of the car is incurred and honesty the incidental wear form a 40 mile trip is negligible. We are talking a gallon and half to 2 gallons of gas which is about six bucks and maybe a couple more in maintenance costs.

    And even if it was 2 adults and two kids on the bus would equal about 14 bucks each way. 4 bucks more and I have over an hour when traffic is good. Even when its not I am saving 45 minutes. Plus I am assured of a seat, have room to stash a stroller, stuff I might buy, etc.

    The bus sucks ass. Give me more rail based transit and we can talk, but I’m not putting up with the bus just so I can spend more.

    The above is hypothetical, but my real commute is about 2 miles each way from the South end of CD to First Hill. By bus I would have to leave my house an hour before work and get there a half an hour early. I can walk in 30 or drive to the last free unlimited parking before work on Yesler and walk for 10 minutes. I tend to split between the two. The bus was also way to damn expensive.

    I am with you though on long commutes. I don’t know how or why people do it. Seems like a huge waste. I do however understand the need to occasionally drive to places somewhat far away as I have friends and family around the region. Doing that is not the same thing.

  • geology 101

    Forget Cary and McGinn….you should ask that last question to the 8 tunnel afficianados on the City Council and/or the Seattle 5 that voted for the cost overrun provision

  • geology 101

    Forget Cary and McGinn….you should ask that last question to the 8 tunnel afficianados on the City Council and/or the Seattle 5 that voted for the cost overrun provision

  • Matt the Engineer

    [Giffy] See my first comment for the $30k thing. That’s a rough number for how much per person we could (in theory, if life actually worked like this) give tunnel users instead of building the tunnel. It’s a reality check to see how much a few minutes time savings is really worth to you.

    I know you don’t believe Google, but it really is much more expensive than the price of gas to drive. Even a beat-up old car does cost something to replace (and [Mr X]‘s $1000 car probably doesn’t have many miles left until replacement). Maintenance, effects of pollution, your share of road construction, tires, lost value of land, the cost of war to secure oil, medical costs for accidents, are only some of the real costs that you’re paying every mile – and many aren’t considered in Google’s estimate.

    A two mile car commute is great – I don’t have a problem with that at all. Same with the occasional long drive – I do that myself.

  • Matt the Engineer

    [Giffy] See my first comment for the $30k thing. That’s a rough number for how much per person we could (in theory, if life actually worked like this) give tunnel users instead of building the tunnel. It’s a reality check to see how much a few minutes time savings is really worth to you.

    I know you don’t believe Google, but it really is much more expensive than the price of gas to drive. Even a beat-up old car does cost something to replace (and [Mr X]‘s $1000 car probably doesn’t have many miles left until replacement). Maintenance, effects of pollution, your share of road construction, tires, lost value of land, the cost of war to secure oil, medical costs for accidents, are only some of the real costs that you’re paying every mile – and many aren’t considered in Google’s estimate.

    A two mile car commute is great – I don’t have a problem with that at all. Same with the occasional long drive – I do that myself.

  • Giffy

    @Matt,

    4.6 billion is the cost of the tunnel. Daily users is not the same as annual users. There are many who use it some days but not others. Lets say that a third of people in the region use it at some point. That is probably really really low as most people probably use it at some point during the month or year. So we have a million people who will at some point take advantage of the tunnel.

    4.6b/1m is 4,600. The tunnel will last at least 50 years so 4,600/50 is 92 dollars a year and we are not even including the benefit of removing traffic from I-5 and surface streets in Seattle. Without the tunnel the vision of a rebuilt and park focused waterfront we all want will be replaced with a sea of cars going across town. It would be horrible.

    As for car costs, sure, but I could say the say the same about walking or biking. Biking is much more risky than driving. But I do see your point and I think we do need to spend more on transit, but the kind of world that will not need the tunnel is decades away. We need a solid economy and good mobility to build more transit. People get mad when they experience massive traffic and that does not really inspire them to vote for transit.

  • Giffy

    @Matt,

    4.6 billion is the cost of the tunnel. Daily users is not the same as annual users. There are many who use it some days but not others. Lets say that a third of people in the region use it at some point. That is probably really really low as most people probably use it at some point during the month or year. So we have a million people who will at some point take advantage of the tunnel.

    4.6b/1m is 4,600. The tunnel will last at least 50 years so 4,600/50 is 92 dollars a year and we are not even including the benefit of removing traffic from I-5 and surface streets in Seattle. Without the tunnel the vision of a rebuilt and park focused waterfront we all want will be replaced with a sea of cars going across town. It would be horrible.

    As for car costs, sure, but I could say the say the same about walking or biking. Biking is much more risky than driving. But I do see your point and I think we do need to spend more on transit, but the kind of world that will not need the tunnel is decades away. We need a solid economy and good mobility to build more transit. People get mad when they experience massive traffic and that does not really inspire them to vote for transit.

  • Mickymse

    This information really isn’t particularly new… It mostly reinforces what tunnel opponents have been saying for some time now after looking at previous studies.

    As Erica correctly points out (and by the way, 39% v. 40% is only a difference of 1,200 vehicles or less), the question that needs to be asked of tunnel supporters — like the Guv and 8 members of the City Council — is if it’s still worth $4 billion+ to move ~70,000 vehicles instead of ~120,000.

    If those numbers were to become reality, that would make the new AWV “essential North-South spine” carry less traffic than the West Seattle Bridge, Elliott Way, and most Downtown streets.

  • Mickymse

    This information really isn’t particularly new… It mostly reinforces what tunnel opponents have been saying for some time now after looking at previous studies.

    As Erica correctly points out (and by the way, 39% v. 40% is only a difference of 1,200 vehicles or less), the question that needs to be asked of tunnel supporters — like the Guv and 8 members of the City Council — is if it’s still worth $4 billion+ to move ~70,000 vehicles instead of ~120,000.

    If those numbers were to become reality, that would make the new AWV “essential North-South spine” carry less traffic than the West Seattle Bridge, Elliott Way, and most Downtown streets.

  • TheDude

    Just proves to me we need a better way to toll. Make a mileage fee for driving that deppends on time of day(congestion) and type of driving (charge mroe for premium freeway use). Only tolling one or 2 facilities will make them oporate just great, but won’t help deal with the regional traffic problems. With a toll on 99 it will never have congestion, which will make it my choice to use.

  • TheDude

    Just proves to me we need a better way to toll. Make a mileage fee for driving that deppends on time of day(congestion) and type of driving (charge mroe for premium freeway use). Only tolling one or 2 facilities will make them oporate just great, but won’t help deal with the regional traffic problems. With a toll on 99 it will never have congestion, which will make it my choice to use.