Governor Gregoire: We can pay for the Viaduct replacement with tolls

I think a toll system is ridiculous. One of the main reasons for government is to provide for the things in common use that private ownership cannot. In most cases, that means the infrastructure. It's a political cop-out for Gregoire to pass the buck on to the drivers. If the Viaduct (or its replacement) is necessary, then it is necessary for all of us, together, to pay for it. A toll is a way for weak politicians to hide the purpose and the cost of a project.

If this is a viable solution, will it be just as viable when it is time to replace the 520 floating bridge? Are tolls the solution? Should the users pay for that project, too?

This is a crap proposal from a politically gutless elected official.

To clarify: I didn't say the "revenues are calculated into the costs," but that tolls have been included in Nickels's "anticipated revenues" for the project all along. (These are revenues that are not yet secured.) The city has not released exact estimates on how much tolls could raise, but sources at the city say it isn't likely to be that significant, because there are so many alternative routes that parallel the viaduct through downtown. Put another way, there's NO WAY Gregoire's proposal will fund any significant portion of the tunnel, although it may help. Right now I think they're talking about a toll of $1-$2 each way.

Hope that helps.

I agree with Charles' comment that it's a "making a small percentage of people pay a really, really high tax." But what's wrong with that? People who buy $100,000 cars pay a really, really high tax.

I don't see what's wrong with making people pay for the road they are driving on, even if they are paying for a generation.

I'm not one to doubt ECB, but that seems incredible to me. Can you say "Here's the price" when you really mean "Here's what the price will be after you figure in a new toll?" Because I share your confusion over why that point wouldn't be hammered home in the papers, not to mention the fact that the toll announcement makes absolutely no sense if it's already a part of the price package.

I've been wondering aloud in comment threads on this topic about tolls and nobody has ever said anything about it -- none of the reporting touched on it. But last sunday night I was driving in my car listening to 710 AM and they had erica barnett from the stranger on among others. A caller asked about tolls, to which she said, "oh tolls have always been planned and their revenues are already calculated into the costs." So basically tolls won't help reduce the estimates that are floating around because they're already figured in.

that seems pretty significant to me and I'm not sure why its never really been reported (as far as i've seen anyway).

"those who use it pay for it" is just political speak for "we'll just make a small percentage of the people pay a really really high tax so the rest of us feel better"--a la seattle car tab tax for the monorail. For something that costs billions you can't just say "oh we'll just have the people who use it pay for it" because there is no way it can get funded without, like the monorail, making that small group of people pay a high tax for a generation.

Seems like the people who don't think that 99 needs to have a high-speed corridor (e.g. the Viaduct) are the people who don't see it as a inter-city conduit (i.e. Seattle Islanders). A toll would avoid the Islanders having to pay for the viaduct, but allow those who actually use SR99 as a highway to continue to do so (and not be crammed onto waterfront trolleys and held up by pointless red lights), for a price.