I-90 commuters didn’t like the idea of a toll on I-90 when it was first proposed. Now that 520 tolls are pushing traffic and congestion onto their freeway and into their neighborhoods, however, a change in thinking is necessary.
A significant percentage (estimated 20%-30%) of the SR-520 commuters are jumping over to I-90 to cross Lake Washington. This creates a longer, slower, darker commute, with tens of thousands of additional cars every day on I-90. The simple answer to return I-90 traffic to its previous levels is to toll both bridges at half-price.
Tolls on I-90 and 520 would mean that commuters would have no incentive to switch bridges, and traffic levels would return to normal levels. For the neighborhoods at both ends of the I-90 floating bridge, local street congestion would be eased. Commute times would shrink.
The SR-520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge provides great value for I-90 commuters. It allows nearly half of the lake-crossing commuter traffic to stay on the North end and keep the I-90 commute reasonable. Paying a toll to keep I-90 traffic down and improve the region’s roads is a common sense approach that should be paid for by all who benefit.
We don’t need to artificially restructure the commute routes of tens of thousands of our citizens. Toll I-90 and 520 for a logical and fair solution.
By tolling the I-90 bridge, it may help decongest the traffic and even the flow on the bridges or it will push the problem else where. When the state started tolling 520, it made people take 522 and I90 which made it an impact to residents and people’s normal routes. If we toll I90, people will still divert to 522 and some will even go as far as going 405S thru Renton and back to Seattle either thru local routes or the highways. We are just pushing the problem into someone elses lap. What next, toll 405 so people do not divert there and toll I5? We are trying to collect water with a sieve.
Why not raise metro fares? When was the last time metro had a real fare increase? We could also look into making the Park & Rides as a pay to park lot. A lot of the fees and taxes we pay help to fund the Park & Rides along with keepign the metro running. Metro system puts as much wear and tear on the roads as the normal users. Car poolers has to pay the toll regardless of how many people we can cram into a minivan, but people on the metro system do not. Metro riders has the option to ride the bus and they benefit by not having to pay attention, able to nap/read/relax on the ride and not have to pay $15-$25/day to park their car in Seattle. They benefit a lot but do not pay their fare share of their use.
If the state is looking to make more money, how about making some of the riders chip in a bit more for their bike lanes everyone is putting in everywhere. Cities are spending millions using tab fees and gas tax fees to fund these, but again at the expense of others. I am not saying tax 4-5 year olds learning to bike, but maybe a tax on commuter bikes?
I’m just saying the cost of the new 520 bridge should not be the sole responsibility of the car drivers nor become other peoples financial burden. Everyone will find a way around to paying the toll. The question is at what cost and what collateral damage.
how do we get to a place that we approve a toll for those who use it and then people stop using and now toll the bridge for the people who don’t use it.
I like the comments about the gas tax above. I cannot imagine that the signs telling me to do 30 mph when I’m stopped on I-5. I don’t need the current law makers in my pockets for more money they will spend on something other than it is intended for.
NO TOLL on I-90
Stop the tolling craze. Manage the gas tax to pay for what it was intended.
Wouldn’t we all love that? No argument that they need better management of tax dollars, but reality says that’s not happening soon.
The additional traffic on I-90 makes a regular traffic jam turn into a nightmare. Toll it. I’ll be happy to pay to get to work faster.
[...] benefit from the tolling of both the I-90 and the SR-520 bridges. Tolling I-90 is better for: I-90 Commuters SR-520 Commuters Mercer Island residents « Tolling I-90: Better for [...]
The funny thing is, there are hiehgr costs involved in this crossing right now, but it’s the type of costs that people don’t pay as much attention to. This includes the cost of parking, fuel, car repair, replacement car value, the occasional accident, and the high cost of wasted time (especially when we’re talking about rush hour on 520). Will people value this time savings as much as the few dollars they’ll pay in tolls? Probably not, which is irrational but seems to be built into human nature. I think tolls have a great capacity to change our region quite a bit for the same reason people won’t pay for online content. It’s painful to have to pull out your wallet and pay for something that used to be free .
People are only rational when the true costs are right in front of them. Most of the costs involved aren’t that obvious.
“the cost of parking, fuel, car repair, replacement car value, the occasional accident, and the high cost of wasted time”
These costs will not change with a toll. Your comment makes no sense. I have driven I90 for over ten years. Traffic has always been an issue. The difference in time to work and time to home have been negligible for me since the 520 toll. C’mon, your comment is highly dubious.
[...] cost of improvements to all of the beneficiaries of the 520 bridge. Tolling I-90 is better for: I-90 Commuters SR-520 Commuters Mercer Island [...]
Wow. And we just wanted to even out the bridge traffic a bit. Nice post.