Task Force Looks at Tolling I-5 Crossing


The Oregonian reports that tolls for a new Columbia Crossing could be as high as $5/day for peak period crossings. Outside of peak hours the rate would be significantly lower.

Will the driving public accept this kind of toll structure for a new bridge?

In news elsewhere, IBM has apparently patented the idea of variable rate tolling. Has the task force calculated a license feed into their rates?


42 responses to “Task Force Looks at Tolling I-5 Crossing”

  1. If only they could set up the tolls now to collect the money before building the new bridge, perhaps people would feel differently about building it…

    > Although commitments are not final, project
    > planners say a third of the $4.2 billion project
    > cost could come from tolls, a third from federal
    > transit and highway funds, and a third from
    > state and congressional money.

    And so if they used tolls to pay for all of the cost, it would be about $15 a day.

  2. This is preposterous. If the region is willing to embrace the idea of variable tolling, we won’t need the extra lanes; we can manage rush-hour congestion on the existing bridges be charging for peak-hour use. And we probably could do it with much lower tolls than the ones proposed for this project.

    The rationale for building this $4.2 billion monstrosity is that we need two extra lanes each way. But the only reason we need them is the supposition that variable tolling is not an available tool for congestion relief.

  3. From the patent abstract:

    “toll adjustments are dynamic and depend upon real time traffic conditions”

    It seems to me that in order for this to deter people from driving, motorists would have to check in advance to see if the current rate is acceptable to them. I think it is unrealistic to assume very many people are going to do that.

  4. If tolls for cars and trucks are to become part of the funding plan for a new I-5 bridge over the Columbia River, then as a matter of fairness, parity and tax equity, the users of all modes of transport must also pay user fees to cross the river on a new bridge. This would include transit riders paying higher fares, possibly through a farebox surcharge, to fund a proportionate share of the bridge superstructure and the proposed Max extension into Vancouver. Tolls must also be assessed on bicyclists to pay for the extensive and expensive bicycle infrastructure that would be included as part of any new bridge. One way to charge bicyclists would be to have turnstiles that require a bank or payment card be swiped to go through. The information passed out to the public at CRC meeting in Vancouver (01-22-08) seemed to have the bicycle infrastructure costs hidden and buried within the highway cost estimate and not separated out with full disclosure to the public. To circumvent socialistic and politically motivated tax discrimination, the tolls charged to motorists must only be used to help pay for improving the highway portions of a new multi-mode Columbia River Crossing.

    Furthermore, one of the purposes for a new crossing is to bring the two sides of the river closer together. Tolls do just the opposite. It also seems totally unfair and unrealistic to penalize the working class using the crossing when most people can not choose their own hours of employment and in today’s workplace; people change jobs more often then not. It should also be noted that people living in Washington and working in Oregon also pay Oregon income taxes.

    If motorists are charged tolls that are higher during peak periods, then too must transit fares be higher during those same hours because peak transit periods require additional vehicles be purchased, additional operators be hired, so on and so forth. The user fees for one mode of transport must not be used to subsidize the costs for other modes of transport.

    Finally, before any decision is made on tolling and in all fairness, the CRC task force needs to establish a motorist commuter roundtable advisory group that also includes motorists that frequently use the crossing and small businesses that frequently do business on both sides of the river. This group would be comprised and convened in the same manner some of the special interest advisory groups such as the bicycle and pedestrian committee. The meetings of the motorist commuter roundtable would then be followed with a well advertised public hearing specifically to obtain the public’s input on tolling and user fees, including user fees for transit riders and tolling for bicyclists.

  5. Furthermore, one of the purposes for a new crossing is to bring the two sides of the river closer together. Tolls do just the opposite. It also seems totally unfair and unrealistic to penalize the working class using the crossing when most people can not choose their own hours of employment and in today’s workplace; people change jobs more often then not. It should also be noted that people living in Washington and working in Oregon also pay Oregon income taxes.

    Terry, you undermine your entire argument (and the arguments you’ve been making for years) with this one paragraph.

    It is clear that the proposed auto tolls will only pay for a third of the bridge costs. Bicycle and transit infrastructure do NOT make up the entire remaining two thirds.

    Thus, even from the beginning, auto users of the bridge will be subsidized to a large extent.

    By arguing that there should be no tolls on this bridge for the purposes of fairness and economic interdependence, then you’re making a “socialistic” argument based on your own oft-repeated definitions.

    I’m not debating the merit of your working-class argument in this comment, just pointing out your fundamental inconsistency: You’re simultaneously arguing against “socialistic” policies while arguing a classic pro-“socialistic” case for the bridge.

  6. TOLL TOLL TAX TAX;

    “The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else.”

    **Frederic Bastiat**

  7. Kevin, that kind of poll isn’t really good…

    Of 500 people asked, “56% Almost Never” use the I-5 bridge. That’s less than 250 people who use it regularly, which is about what twenty minutes of traffic at a given time during the day?

    Would rather see a poll from drivers sitting in the bumper-to-bumper…

  8. It seems to me that in order for this to deter people from driving, motorists would have to check in advance to see if the current rate is acceptable to them. I think it is unrealistic to assume very many people are going to do that.

    I think we can look forward to that kind of info being available on our cellphones, on our in-car navigation systems, etc.

  9. It is clear that the proposed auto tolls will only pay for a third of the bridge costs. Bicycle and transit infrastructure do NOT make up the entire remaining two thirds.

    Bob, am I not correct in stating that while automobiles will pay a toll to cover 1/3rd of the cost of the bridge, the other 2/3rds of the cost will come from EXISTING taxes and fees assessed onto motor vehicles (federal and state gas/fuel, and in Oregon the weight-mile taxes)? If there is a “subsidy” towards highway users, where is that “subsidy” coming from – since it appears that neither the Cities of Vancouver or Portland, or Multnomah or Clark Counties will be paying much into this project (thus no property tax revenues will be used); and ODOT does not receive any general fund support (thus no income tax revenues will be used). I am not sure how much support WSDOT gets from the state general sales tax.

    Further, the federal government’s Highway Trust Fund is currently self-supporting and receives no general fund support from federal income taxes.

    Meanwhile, a specific portion of the project is being built with non-highway purposes in mind (namely the bicycle and light rail projects). Who is paying for these? 20% of the revenues that come from the federal gas tax is siphoned off towards mass transit projects, so it’s clear that the highway users are not being subsidized but they are subsidizing the light rail and bike project portion of this bridge.

    I do agree – there should be a “bike tax” (I suggest $1.00 to cross the bridge), as well as a “transit tax” (an additional $1.00 fee for any trip that crosses the bridge).

  10. I would understand a toll on the bridge if actual capacity improvements are being built; but, at most, we will have the same 3 lane configuration with merging lanes. 4.5 billion dollars? The 3 lane configuration can barely handle the traffic today; assuming traffic congestion increases at the rate it has been for the last decade, how could it possibly handle demands 10 or 20 years from now?

    It seems like the sole purpose of this project is to get light rail into Clark County. How much will MAX riders be expected to pay? Will the fares increase during “peak hours” to “encourage” working at different times of the day? Will traffic on I-5 get even worse once express routes are canceled to feed into a glorified streetcar line with stops every 10 blocks? Will bicycles and pedestrians be expected to pay as well?

  11. “I think we can look forward to that kind of info being available on our cellphones, on our in-car navigation systems, etc.”

    What we need, for those of you old enough to remember, is another 70’s style oil embargo!

    That will get people out of their cars!

    (although it didn’t work that time did it? People just got violent with each other!)

  12. I though the article said $5.12? I can see grabbing a lincoln out of my pocketbook, but will they have a penny tray on the counter if I can’t get the .12?

    And this article came after the Trib headline:
    MAX: 1,400,000,000?
    Are these newspapers inciting contempt or something?

  13. I’d like to know where to toll booths go, since on an Interstate you can’t (as far as I know) have electronic only tolling. I know Interstate 15 in San Diego was exempted this for it’s HOT lanes, but the exemption was only granted because the existing through lanes would stay the same, and the same project paid for aux lanes and better ramps for the GP lanes as well.

    They can offer electronic tolling for full-speed operations, but they’ll need some kind of way for people to pay cash and get one. Someone driving from LA to Seattle can’t be expected to get a transponder in advance for a one-time trip.

  14. Bob,

    You always seem to take one line or so out of context from the comments I make and then attempt to twist it around to undermine my entire statement. I think Erik Halstead made it very clear where the money to pay for the crossing is coming from; probably even better than I could explain it. Thank you Erik!

    The whole point of my previous post is that local funding from user fees and/or tolls (that will be used as matching funds to receive Federal dollars) need to spread out over all modes of transport. “IF’ tolls are part of the funding plan, sharing the expense will provide a three legged stool of user fees where all users contribute, and no one mode is charged excessive local user fees to subsidize another mode. A smaller fee for motorists will bring the communities on each side of the river closer together for everyone.

  15. I do agree – there should be a “bike tax” (I suggest $1.00 to cross the bridge),

    If that what it takes to get a bike/ped trail on there, sure. Put up a toll booth at each end and charge $1 for every cyclist, skater or pedestrian who wants to use it. It’ll cost a bit more to install the booths, but they can be removed once it becomes clear that it costs more to collect the tolls than they generate in revenue.

    I’m completely fine with waiting a year or so for free bicycle passage on the bridge. In that time, motorists will subsidize the wasteful, money-losing bike/ped toll booth operations.

  16. Put up a toll booth at each end and charge $1 for every cyclist, skater or pedestrian who wants to use it. It’ll cost a bit more to install the booths

    No it won’t.

    Put a machine, just like what you find on the Portland Streetcar or the parking meters. Instead of spitting out a ticket, the machine will release a magnetic lock that will allow a gate to open – allowing passage over the bridge. It’ll be set up to accept quarters, dollar coins, or dollar bills only. (No credit/debit card, that requires a cellular connection and all the hassle to authorize and process the cards. There are plenty of places at either end of the bridge to make change for you, or you can use an ATM.)

    About 100 feet from the opposite end, you push a button which will open the gate at the opposite end and close it behind you.

    You’ll only need two of these machines – one at each end of the bridge. Total investment is maybe $5,000. I’ll even be nice – set the machine up so that if the machine is broken, a light will be lit up on the machine and the lock will not engage – allowing someone to simply push the gate open.

    At $5,000 – if 100 people use the bridge each day in each direction, the cost of the fare collection equipment will pay for itself in just 25 days – after which the money goes straight to paying for the bridge and the bike path.

    And of course, this machine will be solar powered so there won’t be a dedicated electrical connection required.

  17. While it seems fair to charge public transit users and bike riders a fee to cross the bridge wouldn’t that decrease the possible use of bikes and transit?

    I would think we would want to encourage use of both of those methods that would (in theory)keep the congestion on the bridge down and lower traffic delays for years to come…

  18. No,

    Because 1 – we are building a new dedicated facility for them to safely use. That will encourage its use (after all, “if you build it they will come”.) Besides, by paying a toll that will also ensure that the bike path will also be maintained as well.

    2 – The toll will be far less for a bicyclist or pedestrian than a motor vehicle; so you can save money by using a bike.

  19. How does that $5 toll compare with the last time the tolled the present bridges?

    Will this new toll go away, or be permanent?

    Will the toll halp pay for wasteful light rail?

    Thanks
    JK

  20. I have a couple simple questions:
    1. Is the point of a toll to discourage certain uses (daily single driver commute by car) or pay a minuscule amount of the bridge cost?
    2. If it’s the former then why also discourage alternative modes like cycling, transit etc?
    3. If it’s the latter it seems the suggested $1 for a bike would be far more than the cost of the bike lanes and their long term upkeep. The bridge is being built to handle more cars primarily. Adding a bike route just makes sense and I would think would be a relatively small additional cost. And surely the vehicle lanes will cost more to maintain than the bike path/lanes.

    The point was made earlier that if they implemented tolling to discourage peak use then we could just live with our current bridges and build an alternate route bridge north of the existing bridges for much less and us it for MAX or BRT and bike paths etc. Also a small bridge to get Hayden Island traffic off I5. How much of the $4.2 Billion would that take? $1 Billion? I wonder how much business investment and development could be done in Clark County with $3.2 Billion thus reducing the number of people needing to cross the bridge for jobs.

    I guess I’m confused about the goals of the project. Is it to replace a bridge or address the problem of commuting, traffic, over utilization of cars etc. If we put in a new bridge with more lanes we’ll just be in this same discussion again in 20 or 30 or 40 years.

  21. As far as I can tell, the purpose of the new bridge is to add freeway lanes. The project designers are offering light rail in an attempt to make the project politically palatable, but this is really just a gigantic freeway project designed to move congestion further south.

    Yes, they offered a bogus “third bridge” option for further study, but the third bridge was — wait for it — MORE FREEWAY LANES. And they made sure the third option performed too poorly for serious consideration. A logical “third freeway bridge” option would be “reversible express lanes” — three extra southbound lanes in the morning, three extra northbound lanes in the evening. (That’s still ridiculous, BTW.) But instead, they designed it to be extra southbound lanes all day, making it a bridge that’s only needed a few hours each weekday morning, and would be next to worthless the rest of the time.

    Meanwhile, they stubbornly refuse to give serious study to an arterial bridge option, which could do most of what the proposed superbridge will do at a probable fraction of the cost.

    So this is just a “widen the freeway” project. Once done, there probably will be more proposals to add lanes elsewhere in the system, since it won’t “solve” any congestion problems so much as moving them.

  22. Tolling cyclists/pedestrians is not an unreasonable proposal, nor is it unprecedented. The original Morrison Bridge charged (I believe) 5 cents for pedestrians and 15 cents for a horse carriage. There is a memorial to it in Waterfront Park.

    And there is no need for separate toll facilities. As stated above, there will need to be a way for motorists to pull to the side and pay a cash toll. Just create a bike/ped lane at that location. The last thing we need is a bike/ped tolling “honor system”, with the potential for turnstile jumping or people standing near Erik’s exit button and letting others in for free.

    Regarding a transit surcharge, the solution is very simple. Just create Zone 4, which includes anything not in Oregon. There’s your surcharge.

  23. I would just like to remind you that the reason
    to build the new bridge is EARTHQUAKES.
    The existing bridges are more than obsolete ,
    and a danger each day they exist.

  24. This discussion of tolling bike/ped is really absurd and pointless. It is not going to happen.

    [personally directed comment removed]

    Now, perhaps we could discuss something productive, for example, is the project worth it knowing that it comes with a toll, and what are other ideas to convey the variable toll info to potential drivers before their trips?

  25. “The local wingnut can preach this nutty idea all he wants”

    I object to being lumped in with Terry or any other “wingnut.”

    “why don’t you get out of the way (one way or another)”

    Was that a no-so-veiled death wish? Bob, where are you to remind us of the rules?

    Having said that, what I find absurd is the sense of entitlement that we in the western U.S. have embodied for 150 + years. Free land, free water, free roads. If someone on the east coast walked into a room and said “let’s build a 4 billion dollar bridge and not toll it” they would be laughed out of the room.

  26. More of a “know when you’re not contributing to the process and get out of the way” wish. My position is that Terry is an obstacle to productive discourse. This thread is but one of many examples.

  27. “I would just like to remind you that the reason to build the new bridge is EARTHQUAKES.”

    The earthquake that would knock down that bridge, (which they just did a lot of work on in the 1990s exactly for that reason,) would also take out a dam or two on the Columbia… If you can build a bridge that will withstand a 30+ foot wall of water, that would be great, but that wall of water will probably wipe out Jantzen Beach/Delta Park, and all the other lowlands south to the slough, and likely the freeway that crosses them. Assuming the bridge was still standing, the south end of the bridge would no longer touch down in Jantzen Beach, but would probably be torn off and would end 20 feet above what would have become a sand bar…

    The only real solution for all that would be to take a couple of ferry boats, (that could handle a semi trailer full of medical supplies, or a bus full of refuges, or whatever you might desperately need to move across the river, given that there probably wouldn’t be very many standing bridges anywhere,) and store them on high ground away from the river, with equipment to take them down to the river and launch them, (from some place that may not exactly look like what what it does right now,) after the flood calmed down.

    In any case, that solution is also useful in case a tugboat captain that hits a pier and closes the bridge (more likely than an earthquake taking it down,) or a terrorist attack on the bridge, (probably less likely than an earthquake.) You could also use those boats to cross Centralia after a good rainstorm, (which seems to happen every 10 years or so.)

  28. But instead, they designed it to be extra southbound lanes all day, making it a bridge that’s only needed a few hours each weekday morning, and would be next to worthless the rest of the time.

    Ummm, there’s reverse-flow congestion that happens often enough southbound in the evening as well. It’s not nightly, but with the lack of shoulders the road isn’t very safe and if something happens, it’s staying in the lanes till a tow truck can get through.

    My main concerns with tolls are that I-205 is so inconveniently located, and I-84 and/or surface streets will likely be flooded with more cars around I-205, because there is no other free option.

    I’m just wondering still who gets tolled, and where. SR-14’s location eliminates any chance of it on the WA side, and on the OR side Jantzen Beach doesn’t have much land available. If it’s south of Jantzen Beach, it’s not too fair for residents to be cut off from their own state (without driving through WA) because there’s no other free route.

    At least, to be optimistic about the bridge and the potential southbound bottleneck in the AM, remember it’ll mean cars can get out of Portland faster in the PM.

  29. In news elsewhere, IBM has apparently patented the idea of variable rate tolling. Has the task force calculated a license feed into their rates?

    Oh, I meant to say, that’s just insane. (Or Justin Sane.) Either way, the idea’s a bit crazy. There’s more specific valid patents they own that apply, this is just a long-shot hopeful attempt.

    Today, someone got a patent for a wireless internet, voice and communications device. Does that make it legit? No.

    The company that filed it filed it after Motorola, Apple, etc had supplied patents for more specific items. Patents are often total BS until they’re fought.

  30. This may be a stupid question, but what’s wrong with the idea of an expressway type bridge adjacent to the old one (contending that bridge really is the actual choke-point)? Two-lanes configured northbound at PM rush hour, then southbound at morning rush hour. Couldn’t this be built for half a billion? God, I’d hope so.

    Make the toll a buck each way and that bridge would be paid off in 30 years.

  31. Chris –

    That’s something which could help indeed. Combine that with modest interchange improvements (such as better access to Hayden Island without requiring hopping on the freeway and cross-merging), and you’d do a lot to help traffic conditions.

    Looking at the proposed maps of some of the new interchanges, the ROW taken up by the maze of interchange structures is actually wider in places than the current freeways. Much of that ROW and structures is required to support the margin of safety you need when merging local traffic on and off a freeway. If much of that local traffic could simply be channeled through arterial roads and crossings, there would be less need for large, swooping interchanges.

  32. Looking at the proposed maps of some of the new interchanges…

    Bob, are these available online? I’ve been looking for more detailed schematics of the plan, but have not had any luck yet, other than artists conceptions which rarely reflect the “real” design of a project.

  33. The map I was looking at came from the CRC Project Alternatives page:

    http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/CurrentTopics/ProjectAlternatives.aspx

    I was looking at the “Replacement bridge with bus rapid transit or light rail” map:

    http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/ConcepMaps/DEISDownstreamReplacement.pdf

    The PDF is big and may take a long time to render, but you can zoom in to see the actual number of lanes and how the interchanges work.

    I have no idea how much of the proposal shown on the map is considered settled, and how much of it is merely a suggestion.

  34. Chris, I think your suggestion – coupled with seismic retrofitting and local/arterial access for Hayden Island – is a reasonable solution here. Additional arterial bridges would be great, but might face similar cost issues. And a city as populous as Vancouver (160k) with light rail a mere 2 miles away is crying out for a connection.

  35. After looking at the CRC website it looks like we could shave a good 1 to 1.5 billion from the tab– just by killing the “high capacity transit” portion [a.k.a. light rail].

    Approximately 25% of the total cost of this project will go to 1-2% of the total users of the corridor [most likely less since CTRAN will NOT be diverting express routes to rail]… how can anyone justify that?

  36. Approximately 25% of the total cost of this project will go to 1-2% of the total users of the corridor [most likely less since CTRAN will NOT be diverting express routes to rail]…

    Actually, C-TRAN has already moved several routes to serve light rail since May of last year, when 114-Camas/Washougal Limited became 41-Camas/Washougal Limited, and 173-Battle Ground Limited became 47-Battle Ground Limited (both of those routes run 1x/day Morning/Evening), and they started a new route, 44-Fourth Plain Limited; all running out of Delta Park/Vanport Transit Center (and C-TRAN runs the only bus service in and out of there). In fact, their definition of “Limited” service means that it connects to MAX, just as (1)65-Parkrose (Express/)Limited has done for years along the I-205/SR-14 Corridor. In November, they extended 4-Fourth Plain to also serve Delta Park/Vanport, meaning their most-used route now connects directly with light rail.

    Yes, they will still continue to run express service to Downtown, Lloyd District, and “Pill Hill,” and this fact was added to the CRC project.

  37. I was looking at the “Replacement bridge with bus rapid transit or light rail” map: […] The PDF is big and may take a long time to render, but you can zoom in to see the actual number of lanes and how the interchanges work.

    All those lanes and interchanges… but where are the tolling facilities? Even if most people are going to use electronic through-tolling, you still need at least a few booths. The new Tacoma Narrows bridge has electronic tolling on the through lanes, but still has manual offline booths for those paying cash. And I suspect I-5 will need a few more booths than SR 16 does. These facilities will take some space.

Leave a Reply to C Lee Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *