Stuck in the middle of the I-90 tolling issue is Mercer Island. Halfway between Seattle and Bellevue, this island enclave wasn’t likely to support a toll on I-90 before tolling had started on SR-520.
The new traffic situation may be changing residents’ opinions. Mercer Island is now in the middle of a gridlocked commute for longer, darker, slower hours every morning and night. Tens of thousands of new commuters have converged to pack the I-90 floating bridges and escape the tolls on SR-520. Residents who stay on the island full-time are not affected, but these are few. Most leave the island for work, dining, shopping, and entertainment.
A toll would obviously disproportionately affect the residents whose only only access to Mercer Island is I-90. It might make sense to allow a credit, discount, or exempt-status pass for permanent residents, whether on a a full-time basis or possibly in the evenings and weekends. Opponents of a toll had expressed concern that the local Mercer Island businesses would be hurt by fewer customers if a toll were instituted. The same could be said if it takes 45 minutes to cross I-90 in gridlock.
Reduced Tolling for Mercer Island residents
There are many great ideas for reducing the disproportionate burden of tolling on Mercer Island residents. The best include transponders on both sides of the island. If each transponder only charged a half toll, Islanders could travel to Seattle or the Eastside and pay half of what a cross-lake traveler would pay. Even better, the transponders could only charge a toll if a driver pass both sides of the island on the same day. Seattleites could shop in M.I., and island residents could travel in either direction without paying. They’d only pay a toll if they crossed the whole lake, like the rest of the commuters.
Mercer Island is in an interesting position, because the island isn’t technically serviced at all by the SR-520 bridge. The indirect benefits of tolling I-90 and SR-520 for the residents of Mercer Island are clear, though. Tolls on I-90 would significantly improve the quality of life and access to work and home for residents at a low cost. Commuters could speed quickly through the island as opposed to stalling, fuming, and blocking on-ramp or off-ramp lanes.
Tolls on 520 are here to stay, along with the waves of new commuters on I-90. The traffic situation must be addressed in light of those realities, and tolling both bridges is the simplest way to reverse the congestion issues. Mercer Island would see a significant benefit from the tolling of both the I-90 and the SR-520 bridges.
As a resident of Mercer Island, it is ridiculous to claim that this would be some kind of benefit for us. It increases our costs disproportionate to everyone else and lowers our property values. Why not toll I-5 and I-405 and all other roads at the same time. Why I-90?
This is not the way to raise revenues. Please do not claim that Mercer Island residents support this in any way.
This is an extremely unfair burden! We are a family of four drivers who each make about 2 trips a day. That is 240 trips a month. At $8 per round trip we will be taxed $2000 per month, $24,000 each year!!
Tolls can be reduced or removed totally for M.I. residents with transponders on both sides of the island.
To say it is better for Mercer Islanders is very far fetched. If you really want to find out how Mercer Islanders feel about the toll, you should set up a poll or booth in town and ask. Not have everyone else (not living on the island) tell how Mercer Islanders feel and saying it is better for them. BTW, I do not live on the Island.
There are good ways to reduce M.I. residents’ tolling costs.
I work on Mercer Island (not a high paying job). I think of all the teachers and workers (nanny’s, restaurant workers, store clerks, housecleaners, etc) who would be suffering by this toll. Also some of the preschools/schools would suffer as well, as they have families from off Island that attend. This could cause job loss for teachers. The toll on I90 is a bad idea!
Same issues that people in Kirkland, Bellevue, and NE Seattle are dealing with re: 520 tolls. It’s a reality. The transportation system isn’t free.
You have to be joking, and you obviously do not live on Mercer Island. It’s an island! There isn’t much on it. Residents use the bridge for all aspects of our daily routines, not just commuting. Our lives would be much impoverished if we has to pay $6 every time we wanted to get a frozen yogurt, take our kids to an indoor playground, catch a movie, or get a meal whose price hasn’t been jacked up. You clearly don’t understand life on MI.
No, don’t live there, but do understand it. The island will only be tolled on one side. Residents could still go out without a toll. It will probably be tolled on the Seattle side.
You obviously didn’t go to the I-90 toll meeting two nights ago. The most frequently mentioned option was one toll one each side of the island. If you can understand it, why say it is better for Mercer Islanders? It is an extreme situation for a small minority.
Yes, but the toll would be half price on each side in one direction. So, M.I. residents could go to Seattle, or the Eastside, and then back home and only pay half the total toll. Everyone else would pay the full toll for crossing the entire lake.
I have three college age kids, two living at home and one parent in assisted living. Both of us parents work in Seattle. The kids that live at home both work off island. The cost of a toll for all us to get to and from work and college would cripple us. If you think this is such a great idea, pay for our tolls. I am happy to pay fair taxes. There is nothing fair about this toll.
Mike
Mike, I wish the legislature had done better with our gas tax money. The cat’s out of the bag now, and we need to fund this bridge.
Why are we being hit with the bill for a bridge between Bellevue and Seattle? The local residents have the option to go around, we do not. A toll is a user fee. I haven’t used the 520 bridge in years. There is ZERO benefit to me. Bellevue is 3/4 of a mile from my house.
Many of my neighbors are on fixed incomes. This $3.50 proposed toll is so much BS. How long before it is raised to ten dollars round trip.
Believe me, any Politician voting for this or any Politician who appoints someone who will vote for this will have a united voting block of 22 thousand residents against them. We are united and angry.
Agree!! We are united. We are prepared for fighting to end!
What about moving the tolling point to access into Seattle only, in other words, between MI and Seattle? Wouldn’t this retain most of the predicted revenue generation and move the commute patterns back to how they were before 520 tolling? But it would also allow both Islanders and off-Islanders who need to access MI to/from all points east to do so without burden. I live east of Bellevue and access MI 3-5 times per week for religious community activities (worship services, volunteer work, children’s education, etc.) The social impact on families in my situation would be severe.
Agreed, Kindra. It should be the Seattle commute that is tolled. The residents of M.I. would still have options on the Eastside without tolls.
This is not better for Mercer Island. If you want to see more detail on why, visit: http://www.notolloni90.org/
As much as I’m in favor of tolling both bridges, this isn’t your best post. I found these arguments pretty weak.
Mercer island business are probably doing better for the traffic, not worse. More traffic means more people choosing to kill some time on the island until traffic lets up.
I’m also bothered by your proposed concessions towards Mercer island residents. Mercer island is home to some of the highest property values in the metropolitan area. Why would we subsidize rich people’s transit? These are the same people who refuse to pay any taxes for infrastructure (and why 520 needs to be tolled in the first place). If you chose to live on the island and regularly spend time off of it, you have to pay. Just like I have to pay the lake crossing toll because I work on the Eastside but choose to live in Seattle.
Toll I-90 because bridges aren’t free, and shared infrastructure means shared costs. When 520 is replaced and paid for, the eventual I-90 replacement will have to be paid for too.
Mercer Island people pay plenty for infrastructure. Their property tax receipts far outweigh most of their surrounding communities, and the county benefits greatly. Still, your point on not needing an M.I. concession is a good one, and most would probably agree.
Commuters don’t “kill some time” halfway through the commute. If they want to kill time, they do it by leaving earlier or later, killing time on one end of their commute or the other. There isn’t an increase in traffic getting off the bridge on the island right now.
Well soak the rich doesn’t work so well when you realize that there are people who drive there for work and school.
Also, with tolling the property values and business receipts will likely drop. This might net to less than the revenue gains in tolling.
No soaking the rich here. Regular folks are already paying a toll on 520. M.I. would just join the club. Property values in M.I. will not go down, it’s an exclusive community. It will become even moreso.
And you would impact those folks even more. For all of the griping about regressive tax around here, the toll seems to be the most regressive of all.
But you can’t trust the legislature to do anything but spend more. There is a reason that these tax increases in general don’t get support. There are enough people who realize that the state and other levels of government here in WA don’t know how to prioritize and spend responsibly.
We should not gamble with the lives of 50K who live, work, go to worship and operate businesses on Mercer Island because our legislature is a bunch of irresponsible cowards who can’t prioritize like adults.
No arguments with your disappointment in government spending, Bob. We’re still spending tax dollars for concrete fish sculptures on freeways and we can’t even pay for a new bridge.
Dan:
We have a bridge and it is fully paid for. Why should we have to pay for a bridge we don’t use? Like you said, we already pay large property taxes and gas taxes.
Usually the state would just pay for it through the gas tax. That’s not happening now. It’s the only way to even out traffic and get the project done.
[...] The costs of the 520 bridge should be shared by all who benefit. Let traffic resume its previous patterns. Shorten commute times county-wide, and lessen the burden on a select few. Toll I-90 and SR-520 at half-price, and spread the 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 residents [...]
[...] Mercer Island residents [...]
For those in favor of tolls, and you think the amount of the toll will be set low and remain low, or at an “agreed” rate, you need to look into the history of tolls on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (the only other toll bridge in Washington state except for SR 520). You’re thinking is incorrect and naive.
On the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the tolls were initially set low. Then came a series of increases. The most recent history: 2008 — tolls raised from $1.75 to $2.75 for those with transponders; and from $3.00 to $4.00 at tollbooths. In 2009, tolls were raised from $2.75 to $3.25 for those with transponders. In 2012, tolls were raised to $4.00 for those with transponders; to $5.00 at toll booths; and to $6.00 for pay by mail. I think the plan is to raise tolls again in the future to $6.00 for transponders or at the toll booth. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is being tolled at this point to pay back the construction costs of that bridge. So those tolls increases were likely planned as part of the finance plan for constructing the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
In the case of the I-90 bridge, there is no construction cost to pay back. The I-90 bridge has already been paid for. The state wants to toll I-90 to pay for the construction cost of the SR 520 bridge. Never in the history of Washington state, and maybe in the entire United States, has one bridge ever been tolled to pay for the construction costs of another. The Tacoma Narrows may be pointed out as a contrary example. But the Tacoma Narrows bridge is located about 200 feet from the old Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and the two bridges serve the exact same travel corridor with approaches and exits coming from and going to the exact same highway.
In the case of the I-90 bridge and the SR 520 bridge, they serve completely different travel corridors. I-90 is an interstate highway of state significance, running from Boston to the Port of Seattle. SR 520 is a local road running from Seattle to Redmond.
If the state gets away with it, and tolls I-90, the tolls will never be removed. The state will likely keep tolling I-90 after the unfunded cost of the SR 520 bridge (now stated as $1.4 Billion) has been paid off, because the powers that be in Olympia want to turn roads into revenue streams from now to forever.
So to those who are saying that tolling I-90 is good for Mercer Island and good for commuters, you are spreading misinformation.
The state is looking at tolling roadways to raise money and lots of it. Unquestionably, the tolls will go up and up and up, and never be removed.
Tolling I-90 is a nightmare for Mercer Island, as every body and everything on Mercer Island has to get to and from there by I-90. Tolls will be an economic hardship and economic dampner for other communities as well. Tolls on I-90 will hurt businesses and employment and school teachers and civil servants and families up and down the I-90 corridor, and will be an economic dampner for freight, for attendance at professional sports games with arenas/stadiums in Seattle, and a financial impediment to get to the mountains or Sound.
The state will try to sell the idea, by initially saying that the tolls will be low, and will try to convince you that tolls will stay low, and that tolls are the only way to fund roads. DON’T BELIEVE IT. The tolls will go up, and up and up! And the next tolled road may be your own. There are alternatives to tolling to raise funds for roads, which are MUCH less expensive to collect, so more money goes to the actual road project, rather than into someone’s pocket. Plus, the alternatives do not create artificial rifts between communities and economic and social moats.
Please petition the state legislature and put pressure on your local representatives as well, to stop tolls on I-90.
All good points. However:
I-90 and 520 are the same corridor. If you live in Seattle or the Eastside you’ve heard this countless times: “Which bridge should I take?” They’re on 4 mi apart.
Someone has to pay for the transportation system. Gax tax increases are getting voted down. If we want a new bridge, users of the corridor will have to pay for it.
Except… the part that is unfunded on 520 isn’t the bridge. It is the Montlake section. Why isn’t that segment tolled?
Further, if balancing traffic was the issue, why not put tolling on I5 and I405?
“Further, if balancing traffic was the issue, why not put tolling on I5 and I405?” My friend, just wait. They probably will.
Bellevue and Seattle residents have the option of going around, get a new bridge with quieter pavement, and we just get the bill.
Mercer Island Resident
Great points. If they had the will to pass a gas tax, that would be wonderful. It’s not getting done. We need a new bridge. Gotta toll.