<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Friday, March 29, 2024
March 29, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

Tolls are good to go, but where are they going?

The Columbian
Published: January 8, 2012, 12:00am

I’ve been filling out the form for my Good to Go tolling pass. It is a milestone. I am now an enrolled toll payer, set up not only to pay at the 520 bridge, but also at the Highway 167 HOT lanes, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and, in a few years, the downtown Seattle tunnel.

And there will be more. This is just the beginning of a new regime on the roads.

I’ll miss the free road but will enjoy the improvements. For people who want more road lanes, that’s a reason to accept tolls. I note, however, that there are people who are against more road lanes and in favor of tolls, because tolls dampen demand.

Increasing supply, reducing demand: It may be the exit from the conundrum that new freeway lanes just fill up, leaving congestion as bad as before.

That conundrum was noted 50 years ago and has been confirmed by two economists from the University of Toronto, Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner. In a paper published in the American Economic Review, they found in U.S. urban areas, it was generally true, and that in the densest parts was absolutely true: New road lanes just fill up.

The study found the same effect with transit. Buses and rail free up space on roads, which just fill up.

More roads, more transit: Neither ends congestion, at least in the central city.

That’s not to say that more of either is a waste. We don’t think building a school is a waste because it will “just fill up” with kids. So it is with new roads that “just fill up” with cars and trucks. Roads fill up because people use them. When a bus fills up, the meaning is the same. Each investment increases mobility, which is about going where you want.

How much is mobility worth to people — not in general, but in a specific corridor? In theory, tolls give you a way to find out. Put a price on a bridge, and see if people pay to go over it.

The state puts a price on 520 for immediate reasons. It wants to pay for a six-lane bridge. It also wants to decongest traffic. But how people respond tells you something. Do they pay? Do they flee to I-90? Maybe I-90 should be tolled.

Government, not a market

The theory is intriguing. Tolls are like prices in a market, except, as program manager Matthew Kitchen of the Puget Sound Regional Council says, “We can never forget this isn’t really a market.” It’s the government, which is creating a stream of revenue for itself.

As tolling expands, Kitchen says, “there need to be controls, to make sure consumers benefit. Tolls need to be tied to investments. If they are not, the opportunity for mischief is too great.” On 520, the tolls are tied to the investment in a new bridge. But in the future, tolls could be put on a corridor already paid for, and generate more money than necessary for upkeep.

What would the state do with the rest of the money?

Another thing. Tolls price some people out of travel. They are the losers in a toll regime. Kitchen suggests that in the future, some of the toll money should benefit them. It could subsidize buses. Others will want excess tolls to go to roads.

I like roads, and I’m fine with subsidizing urban buses. But as I sign up for Good to Go, I wonder where ultimately it will go: for building more or building less? I put the question to Clark Williams-Derry, who blogged at Sightline Institute about the Toronto study.

“Both may be true — but in different places,” he said. “We’re going to find out.”

Bruce Ramsey is a columnist for The Seattle Times. Email: bramsey@seattletimes.com.

Loading...