New York City Mayor Bloomberg announced a proposal for congestion pricing in Lower Manhattan. The system would add an $8 toll to the existing tolls for bridges and tunnels into the city, using cameras that can record the license plate of cars. The idea is modeled upon a successful congestion pricing plan in London introduced by Mayor Ken Livingstone.

This is a great idea that uses modified market incentives to discourage driving, while raising money for road maintenance. It shifts costs from general taxpayers to drivers. The question isn't why New York City and London are doing this, but why other cities around the world aren't.

The typical objections are:

• This is an attack on drivers, and thus politically unviable in cities dominated by driving.
• This makes sense if there is mass transit, but most cities don't have enough mass transit.
• Damn liberals and their freaking taxes and big government!
• Tolls are inconvenient or intrusive.

These reasons are actually closely related, as becomes clear when the idea is examined. It's true that congestion pricing affects drivers. But the flip side of this is that congestion pricing raises revenue for roads. This isn't a raise in taxes but a shift in taxes from the general population to the people who actually put a strain on the road network. That means that there is more room in the general budget for other projects, or for a drop in taxes if people decide that's a better policy. Congestion tolls are an avoidable tax, because people always have the option to use mass transit. Tolls also direct government taxation at a smaller group of people, and acknowledge the usefulness of markets, making them superior to general taxes and policies based on mandates rather than incentives. Those opposed to a high degree of regulation should be happy to support an alternative that reduces regulation. Modern tolls can avoid slowing down traffic by using cameras to identify vehicles, sending a bill every so often to the owner of each vehicle. These cameras are no more intrusive than the transportation cameras that are already in use in most cities.

That leaves the question as to how much public transportation is required for congestion pricing to work. Cities with poor public transportation provide few options for commuters, most of whom will have no choice but to pay the toll, move, or change jobs. Most will simply pay. But that's not a bad thing. Even in a city with no public transportation, tolls represent a fairer way to pay for road maintenance. They encourage people to move closer within the toll boundary, or to get a job closer to their home, completely outside the toll boundary. In either case, transportation is made more efficiently. As for bringing better public transportation, by shifting road costs to tolls, more money is available in the budget of cities to improve mass transit.

Only if the toll is so onerous that it impacts the overall economy of a city is it a bad idea. So setting the level of the toll is important. The toll should encourage more efficient use of roads and increased use of mass transit without being an economic burden. One way to ensure this is to exempt certain vehicles from the toll, such as trucks delivering freight to and from major ports. Another is to start with a relatively low toll, measure the effect, and then modify the toll based upon the results on traffic and economic development.

Here's what I envision for Seattle. The city of Seattle is geographically constrained, particularly on the north, west, and east. While the worst traffic areas might be in the downtown core, it's actually easier to set tolling cameras based on geographic features. The Lake Washington Ship Canal is crossed at only six points--I-5, SR 99, Montlake, University, Fremont, and Ballard. The two floating bridges are the only points in from the east. Most of the west side of the city is on Elliott Bay, except for West Seattle across the Duwamish. There are two bridges that cross here--the West Seattle Bridge and the bridge for SR 99/509. Boeing Field takes up most of the rest of the city to I-5, and toll cameras at the correct points on East Marginal Way and Airport Way, and northbound I-5, complete the tolling system on that side of the city. The southeast part of the city is a little more difficult, but a close look at the map shows that putting in four cameras along the four major roads that cross at or near Henderson Street north of the Rainier Beach neighborhood is sufficient to cover every route into the city.

Seventeen cameras. WSDOT already has cameras in the right spots north and southbound on I-5, on I-90, on 520, and several close to other locations, and it would not be difficult to upgrade these cameras for tolling purposes and add fourteen more in the other locations. Beyond that, all that is needed is an administrative system to mail bills and collect tolls.

Set the toll to start at $1.50, which matches the one-zone peak fare for Metro and Sound Transit buses. Reduce or eliminate the tolls for off-peak and low-congestion hours. Incorporate the existing local MVET (motor vehicle excise tax) fees into this toll, to simplify local taxes. When the light rail trains open, make sure that the toll is at least as high as the light rail fare. Direct 50% to road maintenance and 50% to transit.

If the early system is successful, add an additional dynamic toll above the flat congestion price rate that rises and falls with congestion on each major regional highway, and signs in key locations that advertise the current price. This way, motorists can choose the cheaper and less congested routes based on live information about traffic. This increases efficiency of the roads while raising even more revenue for road and transit projects.

Finally, as state and federal carbon mandates are introduced, adjust the system to ensure compliance with those mandates. If there's a carbon tax, it will be possible to distribute the tax according to road use, if that's allowed. If there's a carbon cap and trade, the tolls can be used to reduce the city's use of greenhouse gases and possibly generate carbon credits that can offset the additional tolls. During economic downturns, the tolls could be adjusted downward temporarily to help ease the impact on lower-income commuters and encourage short-term economic growth.

When I briefly outlined this idea over at the Slog, I was told that this was tantamount to banning cars from the city, and that I was better off voting for Kucinich and Nader in 2008. To the contrary, I think this is an achievable and moderate step that could be sold politically, while also actually making a difference for the city of Seattle.

Transportation in Seattle
Part two: What to do about it? Answer: Sound Transit Plus
Previous post

Having established that transporation planning in the Seattle area is broken, the question becomes what to do about it. The danger in proposing solutions is that the crux of the problem is one of the Seattle process. Simply put, democratic government in Seattle is broken, at least when it comes to transportation, with too many people having input and no one having the final authority to make a decision.

I have no problem with public involvement when planning the future. That is the essence of democracy. However, when nobody has the power to make a final decision, the public input just becomes a means for doing nothing--or even worse, for an undemocratic result to arise from a lack of official inaction. If public discussion does not result in public action, that's not democracy, it is the very antithesis of democracy. Any solution that adds more input without assigning responsibility for decisions and actions simply compounds the problem.

The question then becomes how can we organize decision-making responsibilities about transportation in Seattle so that the people who live here can contribute to those decisions without preventing our leaders from making clear decisions and acting upon them. Some basic principles are clear:

• The Seattle metropolitan region is larger than Seattle, so comprehensive decisions must be regional.
• The Seattle metropolitan region has completely different transportation needs from the rest of Washington state, so policies that apply statewide will often be inappropriate for the city.
• Because the Department of Transportation has a statewide mandate, it is not the appropriate agency to make transportation decisions in the Seattle metropolitan region.
• When two agencies both have decision-making power for the same area, those agencies will fight for their own interests, creating political gridlock. Therefore, only one agency should have decision-making power.
• The state has an interest in coordinating metro and statewide projects, so any regional agency should include a representative from the state level to help coordinate regional and state projects.
• The state has already designated Sound Transit as a regional agency for the Seattle metropolitan area. The Sound Transit district includes the urban areas in three counties surrounding Seattle that constitute nearly half of the state's population.
• Transportation policy is ultimately about moving people and freight, not vehicles. Any effective transportation policy must be technology neutral, and must include all forms of transportation in a corridor as part of a single integrated system designed to move people and freight as quickly as possible.
• An integrated system is most efficiently run by a single agency. Therefore, all transportation facilities in the Seattle metropolitan area, including all roads and highways that connect two or more towns or cities, should properly be the responsibility of the regional agency.
• The agency that makes transportation decisions must also be able to make decisions about the revenue that it needs to implement those decisions. Therefore:
• All state revenue used to support state highways that is currently collected within the metropolitan region must be redirected to the regional agency. Furthermore:
• The regional agency must have the power to raise new taxes, without the necessity of expensive and resource-draining public referendums.
• To account for this power of taxation, the governing board of the regional agency must include some directly elected representatives. This provides a way for voters to hold their elected officials responsible for transportation decisions.

Interestingly, Sound Transit is well-situated to take on these additional responsibilities. As an agency, it already includes among its board of directors elected leaders from the cities and councils within the Sound Transit district, as well as state representation in the person of the director of the DOT. It needs only three additional powers before it can fulfill the principles above:

• Control over state highways within the Sound Transit district.
• Statutory power to raise taxes.
• Directly elected members on the board of directors.

I call this proposal "Sound Transit Plus." It's funny that I've come to this conclusion, as I was for many years an opponent of Sound Transit, not because of their goals but because of how they were managed. I was also a supporter of the monorail. But I realize now the real problems with Sound Transit are the same as the larger problems of democracy in Seattle. They were competing with other agencies, did not have final say over transportation in the region, and did not (and still do not have) enough money to put their vision into action. The Seattle Monorail Project, as well-intentioned as it was, was fatally flawed because it used city politics to achieve a regional goal. There was simply no way that good management could come from creating a second city-wide government to do what the city council wouldn't--implement a transit system to solve a larger metropolitan problem.

If Sound Transit had the state highway money that is collected within its district, it suddenly becomes a much more effective agency. It can decide whether that money is best spent on beefing up highways as DOT planned, or better used in some combination with transit. They can decide upon the best use of current revenue--mostly gas taxes, sales taxes, and vehicle taxes--and then determine what still needs to be done.

That's when it needs to use the power of the purse to dramatically change the system. Here's what I would recommend:

• A system of adaptive congestion tolls on all state highways and major commuting arterials in the Sound Transit district. This system of tolls would have the dual purpose of raising money for road maintenance and transit while also discouraging congestion. This is superior to no tolls, or tolls only on new or selected projects, because it creates market incentives for people to choose transit, carpool or vanpool, choose a less congested (and thus less polluting) route, and forego unnecessary trips. It also prevents people from simply avoiding selected tolls by choosing untolled roads.
• Possibly an additional congestion charge for people entering the downtown Seattle core, high enough so that bus and rail alternatives are cheaper than the toll alone.
• Additional user fees on cars, when appropriate.
• An acceleration of the light rail and commuter rail timeline and scope so that the entire regional system is complete within 15 years, and includes areas not in current planning such as those along the 99 corridor.
• In the short-term, retrofit the Alaskan Way Viaduct to prevent its fall during a major earthquake. Make changes to mitigate the eventual loss of the viaduct, including light rail transit and freight transit improvements to the east and south (and possibly making some downtown lanes freight-only north of the viaduct). Do not expand Alaskan Way beyond its current four-lane size. Begin redeveloping the waterfront side of the road. Only after all of these steps are taken, consider whether it is possible to remove the viaduct without replacement.

The state would lose a lot of power and money in this deal, and along with skeptical voters it would be one of the greatest obstacles to these changes. But if it could be brought around, this would free it to redefine its mission. It could:

• Consider encouraging other metro areas in the state to develop their own regional transit agencies. The other areas that might qualify include, in order, Spokane, Clark County, Kitsap County, Yakima, Olympia, Bellingham, and the Tri-Cities. The state could develop a threshold for metropolitan size, and then allow metro counties to opt in if they qualify.
• Redefine its emphasis to focus on connecting metro regions to each other, and maintaining the current rural highway system, rather than building new highways.
• Redirect its new construction money that remains to projects connecting metro areas in the state with metro areas of adjacent states and provinces. A major priority would be regional rail, possibly high-speed, connecting Seattle with Vancouver BC, Olympia, Portland, and Spokane. This could be a model for an eventual renewed national network of high-speed rail.

This may not be possible, but it would certainly fix the current problems with the Seattle process. The remaining questions are ones of political feasibility. How do we get there from here? That's an open question that I will likely revisit in future posts.