King County Executive Ron Sims and former Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald are both in favor of congestion pricing.
Sims seems to be vacillating on whether congestion pricing is designed to reduce throughput of vehicles, or increase it. Doug MacDonald definitely believes in the latter. After all, would Kemper’s White Guys and the Discovery Institute support the idea if it cuts down on driving? (My guess: no) I don’t think the Sierra Club has thought this through. If variable tolling makes the existing freeways work more efficiently, doesn’t that mean you get more volume and more throughput? Add in the issues raised in that Willamette Week article (linked below), where environmentalists are raising red flags on charging per mile instead of per gallon (because of how each system might affect vehicle choice) and you have an even weaker “green” case for tolling.
This raises some fundamental issues and contradictions – which may explain why both greens like Ron and roadwarriors like Doug, Kemper and others all seem to like the congestion pricing concept – it can be all things to all people. The fact Discovery has attached themselves to it should be the first warning sign…
Sims: That’s really interesting. We have tolls on the Narrows bridge. We’re going to have hot lanes on 167, that goes through the Kent Valley. One thing we know is that traffic… it really affects traffic. When we have congestion pricing, it reduces traffic volume 15 to 20 percent, because people begin to use those roadways smartly. And it’s also complemented by increasing the transit service that we’re going to have there. So we expect that people are going to move much better. You know our goal is to have an average speed of 45 miles per hour, which is a lot faster than they’re going now.
Doug MacDonald, who sponsored a competition to put the transpo-nerd term “through-put maximization” into regular-person language:
Haase wrote in his winning entry: “The physics of car-flow in a highway resemble those of rice poured through a funnel. If you pour slowly, you get little out, but if you pour too fast, the rice clogs and you get little — or nothing — out either. Car-flow involves similar thinking. For any highway there’s a particular in-between speed that moves the most vehicles under typical conditions.”
[snip]
While “through-put maximization” — moving the maximum number of vehicles through a stretch of highway at the maximum speed — might sound good to transportation technophiles, much of the public doesn’t understand it, said MacDonald.
The Willamette Week did a story on Oregon’s consideration of congestion pricing:
Environmentalists question why the state would switch to a system where a Hummer owner would be treated the same as a Prius owner. And civil libertarians raise alarms about the mileage tax’s underlying technology—an electronic collection system that uses a global positioning system to count the number of miles driven. That information would get uploaded and recorded at service stations.
“We must be cautious and understand how information can be linked and how information can be used in a way that is not intended or foreseen,” says Andrea Meyer, legislative director of ACLU of Oregon.
I wonder how much it would cost to equip every car in Seattle, King County, or Washington state with the “homing beacons,” or if that would even be possible to do in the next few years? I’m a fan of the Logan’s Run-style bar codes on human beings, but without the ritual killing on your 21st birthday. You know, because that seems at least plausible to achieve within the next few years.
Congestion Pricing??
Sounds like another money grab and attempt at “social engineering” to me.
What pencil-necked “Progressive” dreamed this one up?
We pay gas tax….to build roads.
Gas Tax needs to be used to build more roads….not on consultants & massive WSDOT overhead to “talk about” build more roads.
When the Convention Center was built over I-5, it was done in a way to restrict any possibility of more I-5 Lanes…purposely to please the Progressives.
MORE PAVEMENT….do what was promised by Gregoire & her crowd when they promoted the extra 9-1/2 cent Gas Tax.
So much $$ has been wasted on Light rail dreaming rather than simply build more roads & improve the existing Bus Service.
I have come to believe Progressive means Piss Away Tax Dollars on planning & talking about stuff.
Still sounds better than regressive sales tax.
Will… Oregon mileage tax != congestion pricing. The only sensible way to do congestion pricing is to use a transponder (like on the Tacoma Narrows bridge).
Will, do your research! In Logan’s Run, they kill you on your 30th birthday. If you can’t get simple facts about B-rate movies from the 70s right, how can I trust your analysis on congestion pricing?
But in all seriousness, doesn’t congestion pricing only really work in cities where there are actual alternatives to driving? Like London, New York, etc? When all we have are buses, and they are already maxed out during standard commutes, how, exactly, is congestion pricing supposed to help? Seattle does NOT have the alternative transportation infrastructure to support congestion pricing.
Oh wait, just kidding, it’s not your 30th birthday. I could have sworn it was… Maybe that’s just because Logan looks 45.
@3
I think that’s pretty right, and I’m almost cynical enough to believe that the motivation of Kemper Freeman to support congestion pricing is because he’s thought to himself while stuck in traffic, “You know, I’d pay $5 right now not to have to share the road with all these assholes”. I think part of the motivation might be simply to price people off the roads and force them to ride the bus.
I assume the GMC Sierra Club will be all over any plan that treats their Nissan Pathfinders the same as a Prius. As for everyone else… let ’em eat bus fumes.
Will, Nice job on the cherry picking of articles to quote from. Most of what I found resembled this one from The Village Voice:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/.....estion.php
And this:
http://www.environmentaldefens.....tagID=1253
Congestion pricing is working just fine in London and it’s reducing the number of cars on the road.
I don’t really care what the likes of Kemper Freeman thinks or what his motivations are.
As exelizabeth kindly pointed out, the difference between Seattle and London is that London actually has a workable mass transit system that can absorb people when they leave their cars. Seattle does not, and if Kemper Freeman and the GMC Sierra Club have anything to say about it, we never will.
I haven’t commuted to work by bus in Seattle for over a decade, but even back in the ’90s, the express buses were standing room only. Have they added more buses since then? Also, buses work only if (a) both your home and job are accessible to a bus route, (b) you don’t have to drive a route or travel to job sites during the day, or (c) take tools and materials with you. Basically, bus commuting is limited to downtown office and retail workers. Given the lack of downtown parking for those of ordinary means, very few (if any) of these folks are driving to work now.
What congestion pricing might do is get a few recreational drivers off the road during peak hours, i.e. Ma and Pa Kettle in their RV. But I think traffic congestion is already doing this.
Congestion pricing will have zero impact on commuters who have no choice about using their POVs to get to work continuing to do so.
michael @ 7
Aren’t you the same “Michael” who emailed me several months ago about your dissatisfaction with the Seattle-based Sierra Club leadership?
The article you link to is about NYC, which is a city of 7 million people with transit options galore. What’s your point? I’m fine with congestion pricing in real cities like NY or London.
So I’m “cherry picking” for not linking to an article that is tangentially- at best- related to my post?
@9
Down my way express buses are being added as quickly as possible. It’s a bit of a slow process because all the park and ride lots are full up so new new and expanded lots need to be built before buses can be added. Sound and Pierce Transit’s are also working to build new freeway on and off ramps and such to speed up bus travel.
Most people work in fixed locations these days.
@10
Yep that’s me. And I don’t see a single thing about The Sierra Club reply to your post. I also remember pointing out to you that club leadership can and will change over time and that I wanted out conversation kept private.
In the future I’ll restrict my comments and phone calls to other writers on HA. If you haven’t deleted my email and phone number from your contacts already please do so now.
Logan’s Run
In the vastly superior novel, you are condemned to die at 21.
In the piece of crap film starring the very cute Jenny Agutter, you are condemned to die at 30.
I am constantly amazed that people claim, as Paul does @8, that Seattle does not have a “workable mass transit system.” Tell that to the tens of thousands of commuters like myself who ride Metro every single day. Riding Metro saves me time and (lots of) money, and works a hell of a lot better than people who don’t ride it, such as the woman in this morning’s PI article about the SLUT, realize.
14 lorax
You see, “workable” really means “perfect.” So, for them, Seattle will NEVER have a “workable” mass transit system.
@ 14
Yes, riding the bus “works”, for some. People ride the bus because they have to, and they ride the trains because they want to. But people with money and choices will choose not to wait the 20 minutes it take to transfer from bus to bus. I wouldn’t, if I had a choice.
@11 “Most people work in fixed locations these days.
As far as I know, there’s just as many route salesmen, construction workers, installers and repairmen, etc., as there has always been. And even office workers sometimes are required to go to other locations for meetings, etc.
I think it’s safe to say that people who can commute by bus are already commuting by bus, because it’s much cheaper than commuting by car, and people who are still driving aren’t driving because they enjoy sitting in snarled traffic or think they’ll get there faster than any mass transit options they could use.
Unless, of course, they have to take a local or make transfers. Then, driving is 3-4 times faster than bus.
@16 When I was working in downtown Seattle, I sometimes had to visit state offices in Bellevue, Burien, and Kent. I tried to do this by bus, but it took anywhere from 2 to 3 hours to get to these places, each way. Some of the buses I needed to use ran an hour apart. Not only wasn’t it workable, but consistently arriving late for appointments would have put my job at risk. So, even though I was a downtown office worker, there were times when I had to take a car to work because it was necessary to do the work and keep my job.
@14 It didn’t have to be perfect, but it had to get me where I had to be, been I had to be there, and preferably without getting robbed or assaulted en route.
when not been
Plan B sounds wonderful. Thanks for a peek into our light rail-free future, Will.
Could somebody explain to me how Ron Sims and the Sierra Club could slam away at sales tax as a light rail funding mechanism because of its supposed regressive qualities (more like “not progressive enough for purists”) yet they immediately turn around and support Congestion Pricing – which is TRULY a regressive tax?
If Ron Sims and Doug McDonald really believe sales tax is a bad way to fund transit, why does Sims keep increasing sales tax to run his bus system – at a rate which is now up to .9ths? Proponents of light rail floated a match of Sims’ sales tax bite, and Sims did his best to kill it.
Given all the jam-packed buses around town, and the continued bleeding of service hours out to the ‘burbs, one can guess Metro will coming back for another sales tax bite soon (watch for the regressivity argument to disappear temporarily) After all, congestion, inflation and high driver costs are eating Metro’s service hours alive. It won’t be long before the much-touted Transit Now service is chomped up by these forces, zeroing-out all the supposed benefits in a couple years.
Ah, the wonders of an all-bus system: your tax dollars flushed down the toilet with each traffic jam, each driver, each internal combustion engine, each chewed up section of asphalt.
The bus-crazed County Exec, ex-DOT Secretary, local right wing think tank, and gaggle of cranky freeway enthusiasts did a fine job of killing off 50 miles of light rail. They are obviously feeling empowered now, because their lunatic ideas are beginning to bubble up to the surface.
I hope progressives and transit supporters in this town wake up to realize the rubber tire + internal combustion engine club is moving forward aggressively. And they have lots of friends in high places + lots of money to spend on the freeway future.
If you moved here in recent years, and can’t figure out why this town remains in the transit dark ages – it’s because the fossil fuel boys have simply out-organized and out-hussled the progressives. They’ve also done a nice job finding useful liberal tools to do their dirtywork.
Look at Roger Rabbit – stuck in the mud, fossil fuel-addicted “progressive” extraordinaire. He hates George Bush, but basically sucks off the teet of his policies. These populists are willing tools of caveman freeway politics. The freeway OWGARs appeal to RR’s self-centered base desires, and he is more than happy to return the favor and support any troglodytic plan they dangle out in front of him.
-I am constantly amazed that people claim, as Paul does @8, that Seattle does not have a “workable mass transit system.” Tell that to the tens of thousands of commuters like myself who ride Metro every single day.-
Lorax, when you look at all the population and economic growth on the way, and the resultant congestion which comes as the fun bonus, please tell us how buses which are already stuck in that traffic will become any more popular or efficient than they are now?
If you like pissing tax dollars away on ineffecient buses, where newly-approved service hours are quickly gobbled up by inflation and congestion, then fine: keep dumping more buses on the road. But this model is simply not sustainable. Which is why no other major metropolitan city in the developed world has tried to make an all-bus system work.
-Yes, riding the bus “works”, for some. People ride the bus because they have to, and they ride the trains because they want to. But people with money and choices will choose not to wait the 20 minutes it take to transfer from bus to bus. I wouldn’t, if I had a choice. –
Will nailed it there. Rich people and suburbanites who can afford to drive need to get out of their cars, too. Mass transit should not – as Kemper Freeman believes – be another social program for the poor and the transit-dependent. In fact, it’s the suburbanites who often drive the most – ergo, these are the people who need better options for getting out of their cars…the people who are a lot more likely to get on a train than a bus.
Exposing the unholy alliance of faux transit supporters, and their new-found friends of the Libertarian freeway-hugging right wing:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/fe.....07-08a.htm
Will is observing a trend which is happening nationally – the last gasp of the petroleum drinking dinosaurs.
Will
You make a good point about the fact that “throughput maximization” could increase traffic. But, putting a price on driving tends to reduce its use. So — which effect is bigger? I don’t think you know. It appears that you decide you are against because the Discovery Institute, Freeman, Sims and the Sierra Club are for it. But hold it, so is Transportation Choices Coalition, Futurewise, the Governor’s Climate Advisory Team, Sightline, and lots of other folks not opposed to Prop 1.
Maybe it is just a good idea and has nothing to do with what side you took on Prop 1?
IIRC, Sightline opposed Prop. 1.
Oh wait. They said they were “neutral” (pussies), but then published half baked “analysis” casting FUD on the case for rail.
The problem is easily solved. Anyone who votes for a democrat can’t buy gas and can’t buy electricity. They can
vote again in 5 years. Traffic solved. Global warming solved. Gas prices solved.
@ 27
But hold it, so is Transportation Choices Coalition, Futurewise, the Governor’s Climate Advisory Team, Sightline, and lots of other folks not opposed to Prop 1.
The people I know at TCC always saw a driving tax as something that would happen in conjunction with big investments in light rail. You know, so people would have options.
But Sims and others want to charge people to drive their cars while giving them more shitty ol’ buses. Buses that people already don’t ride as it is. Buses that people with the money to drive would never ever ride.
Since johnj seems to be very well acquainted with the Sims congestion pricing study, he might have noticed the part where those east coast consultants identify the funadamental flaw of the Sims “emotion before reason” approach: you need a viable transit system (ie, rail) in place BEFORE you start punishing middle class people with oppressive Lexus Lane tolling. Or, did you skip over that part, johnj?
Putting the cart before the horse has always been the pointy-headed academic ideologue’s best strategy.
But who needs reality, anyways? The quintessential social engineer never needs to root his theories in reality – these guys are way too much smarter than us to kneel to such low levels….
Aaron@28, Sightline has a pathetic record when it comes to fixed guideway rail. Founder Alan Durning was buddies with anti-rail fanatic Emory Bundy back in the 90’s, and manufactured bullshit junk science “cost-benefit” studies to aid the cause of the rabid anti-railer activists. When monorail came along, the bogus intellectuals at Sightline (Eric de LaPlace picked up where Durning left off) decided to apply totally different standards (none) making it difficult for me to take anything they say seriously.
-You make a good point about the fact that “throughput maximization” could increase traffic. But, putting a price on driving tends to reduce its use-
…for the non-rich.
You kinda forgot to finish your sentence, didn’t you, johnj?
Ironic how the supposed ‘champions of the poor’ tend to let their elitist pedigrees interfere with an accurate assessment of public policy issues, no?
Done that GHG analysis of diesel buses stuck in traffic yet, johnj? We anxiously await the results. Maybe you can roll them out on the Sightline website.
-Maybe it is just a good idea and has nothing to do with what side you took on Prop 1?-
It’s a good idea inside your little bubble, johnj.
I just read recent survey results, including the poll done by your Sierra Club. You can gloat like a child in a sandbox all you want, but from what I can read into what people said, your victory is nothing more than pyrrhic.
You helped the right wing make their anti-tax & anti-transit case. Wow, that’s a tough thing to accomplish.
I would feel proud, too.