AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel  (Read 74016 times)

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1168
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:44:06 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #350 on: November 03, 2017, 04:18:11 PM »

I do hope there will be a sign at the south end of the tunnel indicating what the toll is. Seems rather stupid to put it at the north end. I'd rather have it at the south end, because that way I can get off of 99 if I didn't want to pay the toll.

Of course there will be a sign at the entrance. The north portal sign is simply to notify drivers how much they will be charged, assuring them that the rate hasn't changed mid-drive.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6313
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 21
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:51 AM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #351 on: November 03, 2017, 04:59:27 PM »

I do hope there will be a sign at the south end of the tunnel indicating what the toll is. Seems rather stupid to put it at the north end. I'd rather have it at the south end, because that way I can get off of 99 if I didn't want to pay the toll.

Of course there will be a sign at the entrance. The north portal sign is simply to notify drivers how much they will be charged, assuring them that the rate hasn't changed mid-drive.

Well, not necessarily. Neither the 520, nor the Narrows, have any advance price warnings. The only signs are "LAST EXIT BEFORE TOLL".
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3839
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 11:09:11 PM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #352 on: November 03, 2017, 07:35:29 PM »

Probably because it depends on so many things.  Pay by mail or electronic, time of day, HOV or SOV.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1601
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 02:58:09 PM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #353 on: November 05, 2017, 01:47:57 AM »

Probably because it depends on so many things.  Pay by mail or electronic, time of day, HOV or SOV.

Not an excuse.  In other states, variable tolls are signed in advance of the entrance so that people know how much they are expected to pay.  The most common tolling scheme is listed:  passenger car, electronic transponder, single occupant.  Of course, trucks, pay by mail will have an extra charge and HOV is likely discounted, but knowing the base fare is usually sufficient for users to gage whether they want to pay the toll or not.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6313
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 21
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:51 AM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #354 on: November 05, 2017, 02:46:02 PM »

The 99 tunnel will be the only toll facility, so far, that may benefit from advance price warnings. The other two facilities (520 and the Narrows) don't have much in the way of alternatives, so it makes no difference when the price is shown.

That in mind, Seattle is looking into a downtown congestion charge. They want to ensure drivers don't detour downtown. You could also achieve this by not posting prices ahead of time. Although that's kind of shady.
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1168
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:44:06 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #355 on: November 05, 2017, 04:03:53 PM »

The 99 tunnel will be the only toll facility, so far, that may benefit from advance price warnings. The other two facilities (520 and the Narrows) don't have much in the way of alternatives, so it makes no difference when the price is shown.

That in mind, Seattle is looking into a downtown congestion charge. They want to ensure drivers don't detour downtown. You could also achieve this by not posting prices ahead of time. Although that's kind of shady.

The whole point of the congestion charge is for drivers to not enter downtown. I would think that they would encourage use of the bypass tunnel and post warning signs like London does (no charge listed, just that you will be charged).

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 18
  • Location: Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, San Bernardino
  • Last Login: November 15, 2017, 03:04:34 PM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #356 on: November 14, 2017, 07:59:07 PM »

That in mind, Seattle is looking into a downtown congestion charge. They want to ensure drivers don't detour downtown. You could also achieve this by not posting prices ahead of time. Although that's kind of shady.

I know congestion price tolls are sort of the holy grail for urban planners.  But it all gets super shady.

Sidetrack: In 2007 (pre-market crash), I went to a transportation commission meeting for a proposed toll road in Utah.  Goldman Sachs were the financial advisors who discussed the project.  They literally told the commission to "set artificially low toll rates" for 7 years to induce commuting patters ("people will buy houses") and get locked into using the facility.  Goldman suggested the state to double/triple the rates after 7 years once drivers were captive.  After that kind of shadyness, the state is building a freeway instead (it'll take 25 years to build instead of 5, but at least will be free).

I get that Alaskan Way is suuuuuuuuuper expensive and tolling is a must to recoup the cost.  But tolling downtown streets seems a bit... gentrified, perhaps?  It shifts a disproportionally unfair burden onto delivery drivers, taxi services, blue-collar services (plumbers, etc.) to give Amazon workers the benefit of a "nice atmosphere." 
Logged

JasonOfORoads

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 161
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: Today at 10:43:20 AM
    • ORoads: The Roads of Oregon
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #357 on: November 14, 2017, 08:13:46 PM »

That in mind, Seattle is looking into a downtown congestion charge. They want to ensure drivers don't detour downtown. You could also achieve this by not posting prices ahead of time. Although that's kind of shady.

I know congestion price tolls are sort of the holy grail for urban planners.  But it all gets super shady.

Sidetrack: In 2007 (pre-market crash), I went to a transportation commission meeting for a proposed toll road in Utah.  Goldman Sachs were the financial advisors who discussed the project.  They literally told the commission to "set artificially low toll rates" for 7 years to induce commuting patters ("people will buy houses") and get locked into using the facility.  Goldman suggested the state to double/triple the rates after 7 years once drivers were captive.  After that kind of shadyness, the state is building a freeway instead (it'll take 25 years to build instead of 5, but at least will be free).

I get that Alaskan Way is suuuuuuuuuper expensive and tolling is a must to recoup the cost.  But tolling downtown streets seems a bit... gentrified, perhaps?  It shifts a disproportionally unfair burden onto delivery drivers, taxi services, blue-collar services (plumbers, etc.) to give Amazon workers the benefit of a "nice atmosphere."

I would be totally fine with congestion pricing downtown if people who lived downtown were exempt. And I don't mean "exempt if you get one of the limited number of passes" -- I mean if you live downtown, you don't pay 100% of the time until you move out of there. Don't think Goldman Sucks would like that too much, but I don't care about their wellbeing.
Logged
Borderline addicted to roadgeeking since ~1989.

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3839
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 11:09:11 PM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #358 on: November 14, 2017, 09:53:34 PM »

Why should the people who live downtown be exempt?  They benefit more than anybody else.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6313
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 21
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:51 AM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #359 on: November 14, 2017, 10:31:42 PM »

Why should the people who live downtown be exempt?  They benefit more than anybody else.

They should still pay the congestion charge, but maybe a discounted rate. The congestion charge is meant to keep people who don't need to go downtown from going there. Residents have no choice but to go downtown.

The discount should only apply to one vehicle, though.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1601
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: November 17, 2017, 02:58:09 PM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #360 on: November 15, 2017, 07:59:20 PM »

Why should the people who live downtown be exempt?  They benefit more than anybody else.

They should still pay the congestion charge, but maybe a discounted rate. The congestion charge is meant to keep people who don't need to go downtown from going there. Residents have no choice but to go downtown.

The discount should only apply to one vehicle, though.

In many cities, congestion charges that apply or are proposed are meant to encourage people who don't need to be downtown to bypass it and for those who do go downtown to alter their travel behavior to avoid the charge (i.e. either go at off-peak times or take transit.).  This is absolutely the motivation in Stockholm and London.

The proposed NYC congestion charge is meant to charge a higher toll to reach Manhattan than to take a bridge to go around.  For instance, right now, a driver can drive from Queens to NJ for free via midtown Manhattan but would pay a toll if they took the Triboro Bridge and GWB and bypassed midtown Manhattan.  The congestion charge plan would make the Triboro Bridge's toll cheaper than the toll through Midtown.  So it will encourage bypassing.  Furthermore, for those who do need to reach the center of town, part of the justification for higher tolls is that there is a decent transit option (direct subway lines).

For  Seattle, I can't see any consensus to have a wide-ranging downtown-wide congestion charge.  But if they do, they should heavily reduce (but not exempt) Downtown residents from the charge, but downtown office workers should pay the full charge, since they can leave their cars at home and take transit.
Logged

JasonOfORoads

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 161
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Last Login: Today at 10:43:20 AM
    • ORoads: The Roads of Oregon
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #361 on: November 16, 2017, 10:59:14 PM »

Why should the people who live downtown be exempt?  They benefit more than anybody else.

They should still pay the congestion charge, but maybe a discounted rate. The congestion charge is meant to keep people who don't need to go downtown from going there. Residents have no choice but to go downtown.

Which is exactly why they shouldn't pay at all.

[The discount should only apply to one vehicle, though.

I would agree to one vehicle per person. Therefore, a couple could have two cars free, but any cars above two would be subjected to the charge.
Logged
Borderline addicted to roadgeeking since ~1989.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 296
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 09:04:47 AM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #362 on: November 16, 2017, 11:06:13 PM »

I am against congestion charges entirely but to me if they were to happen letting downtown residents be exempt from the charges would seem like a no brainer.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6313
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 21
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:51 AM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #363 on: November 17, 2017, 02:55:06 AM »

The discount should only apply to one vehicle, though.

I would agree to one vehicle per person. Therefore, a couple could have two cars free, but any cars above two would be subjected to the charge.

My thought with "one vehicle per person" is that public transit in Downtown Seattle is so good, you really don't need a car at all to begin with. No reason to make it easier to own more than one car.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11122
  • Hope for the Alan!

  • Age: 34
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:51:20 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #364 on: November 17, 2017, 10:58:12 PM »

The discount should only apply to one vehicle, though.

I would agree to one vehicle per person. Therefore, a couple could have two cars free, but any cars above two would be subjected to the charge.

My thought with "one vehicle per person" is that public transit in Downtown Seattle is so good, you really don't need a car at all to begin with. No reason to make it easier to own more than one car.
Until two people have to go two different directions for two different reasons.
Logged
~ Steve
http://www.alpsroads.net
I've listened many times, and I still can't figure out what the fox says.

"YOUR NAME IS NAMED AFTER A BUTT"

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 359
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:55:13 AM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #365 on: Today at 01:56:06 AM »

I don't understand the need for a congestion charge in Downtown Seattle. It's nowhere near as needed as it is in London.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6313
  • Don't do what Donny Don't does

  • Age: 21
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:51 AM
Re: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel
« Reply #366 on: Today at 02:07:18 AM »

The discount should only apply to one vehicle, though.

I would agree to one vehicle per person. Therefore, a couple could have two cars free, but any cars above two would be subjected to the charge.

My thought with "one vehicle per person" is that public transit in Downtown Seattle is so good, you really don't need a car at all to begin with. No reason to make it easier to own more than one car.

Until two people have to go two different directions for two different reasons.

Assuming they live downtown because that's where they work, it's safe to assume that going two different directions would be rather rare. And when that does occur, there's almost certainly a bus or train they can take. Public transit in downtown Seattle is by far the best in Washington State. There's a bus heading pretty much anywhere you can think of.

Worst case scenario, it wouldn't be illegal to own two cars. However, it might be difficult even without the toll, simply because not all buildings have parking (and the ones that do often have only one stall per unit). The transit and walking/cycling access is so good downtown, you really don't need to own a car. You can rent a car for the extremely rare occasions you might need one.

I don't understand the need for a congestion charge in Downtown Seattle. It's nowhere near as needed as it is in London.

The congestion charge is simply a way to ensure drivers don't detour from the 99 tunnel. A small congestion charge would probably prevent most detours, but wouldn't deter those that need to go downtown.
« Last Edit: Today at 02:10:34 AM by jakeroot »
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.