Cascadia Prospectus

Seattle Times editorial columnist Lynne Varner (below, right) is a resident of suburban Sammamish, a growing community north of Issaquah, and Interstate 90. Today she warns against the gleeful predictions of some commentators that commuting by vehicle, and the whole suburban lifestyle are heading toward the end stages because of spiking gasoline prices.

The New York Times recently published essays from writers expressing the national angst over skyrocketing gas prices. The mood was funereal. One was titled "Goodbye to the Great American Road Trip," and needs no further explanation. "Ghosts of the Cul-de-sac" announced, a tad gleefully, a mass exodus from the suburbs and exurbs as people escape their cars for city living.

Blog postings on the subject ranged from expressions of schadenfreude to something more venal. Suburbanites are stereotyped as gas guzzlers commuting to McMansions, the values of which are dropping like granite countertops. One poster predicted rising gas prices will scatter suburbanites like rodents.

...Barring a change in price, we're going to have to change the level of demand. It has already started. Cruising is down...The urge to blame someone - who better than affluent suburbanites and their cars? - is understandable, but a waste. Smart public policy will fail if its relies on emotional attempts to lure people back to the city or offer a bike for every garage. Better solutions are to continue efforts belatedly launched around telecommuting, fuel-efficient vehicle standards and increasing funding for public transit.

Varner's on point. Here are a few more thoughts.

As a transit rider, I want reliable pick-up times and trip times. I don't want to be stuck in traffic on at-grade rail or waiting at a stop for a late bus. But if a trip between the same two points takes longer on one mode than another, I don't care so much, as long as there's on-board WiFi. What if I am paying taxes for 30 years for some or another new transit line(s), but it won't begin service for 12, or 15, or 20 years?

Even assuming I would use it when built, that's a very big problem.

If we who pay sales taxes and vehicle fees are to be tapped again, projects have to be delivered in time for us to benefit in our working years. It's no good if improvements being discussed now only serve our grown children - assuming they even choose to stay here. Real performance guarantees, cost ceilings and accelerated construction timelines are essential. That's going to require a new way of doing business.

Game on?

Time To Bite The P3 Bullet

In The Olympian, Adam Wilson reports Washington state officials are bracing for a widening gap of $95 million between expected and actual gas tax revenues through June 2009, as sharply higher gas prices constrict the volume of fuel purchased at the pump. The renewed transportation revenue concerns are indicative of a larger, long-term challenge that's also felt due to the nearly bankrupt federal gas tax trust fund and the shifting landscape in infrastructure.

...construction costs increased by 60 percent in five years, as demand in India and China drove up prices for steel and concrete, and the cost of diesel fuel for construction equipment soared.

In Washington, as elsewhere, some planned road and bridge projects to improve safety and reduce congestion on existing facilities will likely have to be postponed if not cancelled; and funding for important new projects looks even more problematic.

Despite two state gas tax hikes, in 2003 and 2005, totaling 14.5 cents more per gallon, the state is collecting less inflation-adjusted money from the gas tax and car fees in the current two-year budget cycle than in 1998-1999. That was before gas prices spiked, and before a controversial voter initiative, I-695, forced the legislature to dramatically reduce car license tab fees. Some lawmakers want to look at another gas tax hike, but others say that's politically dead in the water and some sales tax revenues used for other priorities should be shifted to transportation. However, advocates for the environment, health care and education would object strongly, and the state faces a budget shortfall next year.

Congestion and safety projects on state roadways are still urgent. The apparent downturn in vehicle miles driven is in the low single digits, coming after years of growth in traffic volume and underinvestment in infrastructure. But it's enough to begin wreaking havoc with plans to catch up with that growth in travel.

What now then? Impetus will grow for tolling. Time-variable tolling on major highway corridors needs to be implemented, but as much if not more to ration peak-hour congestion as to raise money for road projects and transit. Politicians will agonize over revenue enhancement measures, known to most of us as "more taxes." Good luck there, with the economy in a tailspin.

It's time for state lawmakers to consider much more seriously how they can open the door wider for transportation public-private partnerships in Washington state. P3s, as they're sometimes called, are part of the solution to the funding conundrum. They can provide needed investment, stretch public funds farther, transfer risk to the private sector and help ensure stringent performance goals are met.

According to the state, $2 billion is needed for crucial pavement and interchange work on I-5 in Seattle, and another $1.84 billion for safety and traffic improvements on U.S. Route 2 in Snohomish County, the notorious "Highway of Death." In Pierce County, the Cross-base Highway and extension of SR 167 to the Port of Tacoma languish for lack of funding. Federal and state funds would only cover a portion of these projects; a tiny fraction of the first two. When the full environmental mitigation plan is settled, expect total costs for the new SR 520 floating bridge to well exceed current estimates. Across the board in Central Puget Sound, tolls will help but won't come close to paying full freight. Nor should that be their primary purpose.

It's time to bite the P3 bullet. This includes a necessary public education effort involving political leaders, to clear up misconceptions that P3s equal "privatization." That's wrong. The assets are still owned by the public sector, which also retains control over rates and fees. If P3 interest costs can be somewhat higher than with traditional public financing, that's a fair trade-off considering that the pay-off in project delivery comes much sooner; that the payback can stretched out over a longer period and offset with user fees such as tolls rather than general taxes; and can be pegged to construction and project performance milestones met by the private partners.

To get the ball rolling, political leaders should initiate a very public conversation about transportation P3s for Washington state.

Related:

"Are Privately Operated Highways In Your Future?," KPLU-FM, Seattle;

"B.C. Paves The Way To Better Infrastructure," Globe and Mail;

"The P3 Boom," Financial Post;

"Report On The Transportation Innovative Partnerships Program," Washington State Transportation Commission;

"Case Studies Of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships In The United States," for U.S. DOT.

Proposals for highway congestion pricing and electronic tolling advanced this week in the San Francisco Bay Area, metro Portland and Seattle-Puget Sound. Here's a rundown.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that in the Bay Area, the Municipal Transportation Commission yesterday approved a funding plan that would establish regional High Occupancy and Toll (HOT) lanes on 800 of the region's 1,200 miles of highway lanes by 2025. Existing and under-construction carpool, or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, would be converted to electronically-tolled HOT lanes which would be free to HOVs, transit and motorcycles and also open to solo drivers for a fee that varies according to time of day and congestion level. In addition, new HOT lanes would be built, creating a seamless regional network. Free general purpose lanes on the affected highways would still be available for those who prefer to avoid tolls, though travel times would be slower than in the HOT lanes.

The idea is to give drivers and employers an added incentive to avoid peak-hour solo vehicle trips if possible, but also to give drivers a guaranteed congestion-free option, for a price, if they have to drive alone at peak hours. The regional plan for the Bay Area would entail HOT lane charges in the range of 20 to 60 cents per mile at the outset, working up to as much as $1 per mile by 2030. Four pilot projects can advance now, but the state legislature must approve the whole regional plan. A bill is already pending in Sacramento. More on the plan here, from the MTC.

In the Portland region, the last of six required agencies signed off this week on moving forward with plans for a new bridge across the Columbia River on Interstate 5 connecting Portland and Clark County, Wash., with congestion pricing, an extension of Portland's light rail system, and separated pedestrian and bike lanes. The Columbia River Crossing plan includes fixes to several problem interchanges north and south of the bridge that constrict traffic and reduce safety. The old bridge (actually two bridges) is a major choke point in the I-5 corridor. An application for federal funds can now proceed, while the Washington and Oregon transportation departments refine the project components and cost estimates. The preliminary price tag is $4.2 billion. There will be three through lanes and up to three auxiliary lanes in each direction. Preliminary estimates are that tolls would vary from $1.28 to $2.56 one-way.

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire (right) and Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski last month reiterated they want to see tolling on the new bridge, and, in a specific reference to congestion pricing, "a finance plan that balances revenue generation with demand management." Other key political players involved with the project support congestion pricing, as well. Expect congestion pricing and electronic tolling to be applied to all lanes of the bridge, with HOVs and transit crossing free. A related issue is whether to toll the parallel Interstate 205 bridge across the Columbia, several miles to the east, in order to minimize diversion of traffic there from toll-evading drivers on the new bridge. That's a good idea.

Cascadia Center last month contributed this Sunday op-ed to The Oregonian, describing how Columbia River Crossing could help drive a larger plan for increased transit and "greening" of vehicular travel in the Portland region. That theme was expanded upon in an Oregonian editorial shortly thereafter.

Tolling was also front and center this week further north in Cascadia. In Central Puget Sound, a State of Washington report commissioned to help a special tolling committee and then the state legislature decide on toll rates and venues across Lake Washington was released yesterday. Lawmakers and the governor are already committed to electronically-tolled congestion pricing on the State Route 520 bridge across the lake. Legislation passed earlier this year has jump started the decision making process. One tidbit from yesterday's news: peak hour one-way tolls could range from $2.15 to $3.80, depending what's chosen. Off-peak tolls would be lower. The current 520 bridge must be replaced because it's unsafe in high windstorms or major earthquakes. The questions are when to begin the tolling, at what rates and, most importantly, whether to also toll the parallel Interstate 90 bridge across the lake.

Legislators want $1.5 to $2 billion in toll revenues from cross-lake vehicular travel, to help fund the $4 billion SR 520 bridge replacement. That's prudent, to say the least, given declining federal aid and scant state funding for the project now. A memo prepared for the state shows the toll revenue target for the SR 520 project can't be met without tolling I-90 as well (see p. 2). The state treasurer has said that any acceptable SR 520 finance plan requires tolling I-90. Some lawmakers and others object, believing all tolls collected on a given highway should stay there.

But metro region highways are part of wider or longer corridors which include other highways and transit. In Central Puget Sound three such corridors are 520 and 90 (east-west and parallel); I-5 and SR 99 (north-south and closely parallel); and the extended north-south corridor on the Eastside of SR 522, I-405 and SR 167. A more future-facing "systems" approach to surface transportation planning and tolling is best. Spend revenues raised in a corridor within that corridor, but understand the nature of the beast.

All over the world deep-bored vehicle tunnels are being built in major metropolitan regions. Paris. Hamburg. Zurich. Dublin. Madrid. Wuhan. Nanjing. Shanghai. Scroll down here to Cascadia Center's chart titled "Supplemental Tunnel Project Data Examples" and you'll see costs per mile range from $106 million to $580 million for deep-bored vehicle tunnels in these cities, typically of four to six lanes. The chart is part of a lengthier submission we made to the Alaskan Way Viaduct Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC).

That cost range is worth noting, as SAC and state consultants work through options to replace the aging and unsafe viaduct on Seattle's downtown waterfront. There are eight alternatives now getting a closer look, and one is a slightly curving four-lane deep-bored tunnel that would run as much as 2.5 miles from South Royal Brougham Way to Aurora Avenue North and Harrison Street. Estimated costs for all eight alternatives are to be firmed up later this year. Then, after several final options are recommended by the SAC; the Governor, King County Executive and Seattle Mayor in early 2009 will give their recommendation to the state legislature, which will shortly thereafter make the final decision. It's supposed to be an open book, right now, as to what will be the final choice.

The Seattle Times reports today that of the $2.8 billion already allocated for Viaduct replacement by the legislature, $1.1 billion has been spent or committed for downtown transit, south terminus surface work, pier stabilization, utility line relocation, and improvements to the old Battery Street Tunnel, which will stay in operation no matter what choice is made. This leaves $1.7 billion. Replacing a seawall downtown for about $400 million is required as part of Viaduct project. That money might come partly out of the state kitty or the city might cover part or all of the cost on its own.

But the deep-bore option could still pencil out.

As we've reported to the SAC, global experience shows that now, deep-bored vehicle tunnels are being built for $106 million to $580 million per mile. The given length of the whole Viaduct corridor is 2.2 miles. But because of slight curves in the envisioned tunnel route, let's figure a liberal 2.5-mile length for the deep-bored tunnel. (Project refinements could actually result in a much shorter tunnel distance, but that's not clear yet).

If the global data we've gathered turns out to apply - fairly closely - to costs of a four-lane deep-bored Viaduct replacement tunnel here, and the length is 2.5 miles, the price would be in the range of $265 million to $1.45 billion, almost certainly closer to the high end. If the city ends up paying for just half of the seawall replacement, the remaining funds of $1.5 billion could cover the costs of a deep-bored tunnel.

None of this assumes additional funds from High Occupancy and Toll (HOT) lanes in a deep-bored tunnel, which are eminently possible and could help offset any additional costs, such as those caused the rising price of construction materials. In use around the United States as one of several emerging "congestion pricing" strategies, HOT lanes allow solo drivers for a variable fee, while multiple-occupant vehicles and transit travel free. Travel times are guaranteed to be faster than in general use lanes; experience elsewhere shows drivers at a range of widely varying income levels use and appreciate HOT lanes as a way to get where they have to, when they cannot risk being late due to traffic congestion. An admittedly preliminary 2002 Parsons Brinkerhoff study for the state found that tolling the Viaduct would be feasible as part of a broader regional highway corridor pricing strategy, and that each million dollars raised by tolling the viaduct, net of operations, could leverage another $7 to $10 million in capital investment and $1 to $2 million in debt service.

A complementary strategy, which limits taxpayer exposure, is via risk controls built into a design-build-finance-operate (DBFO) agreement with a contractor consortium. Public costs are capped and contractor payments and penalties are pegged to meeting strict project performance goals. The often-costly disconnect between the design and build phases is minimized; exacting timelines and operations standards are instituted; and the public sector retains ownership of the property and control of tolls, fares or fees. Increasingly, this is how smart governments are stretching infrastructure dollars further.

Even without these supplemental strategies, the deep-bored tunnel option demands serious review, going forward. As we note in our cover letter to the packet we submitted earlier this year to the Viaduct SAC:

Seattle has vast experience with tunnels, both historic and contemporary. There are more than 100 tunnels in the area, totaling over 65 miles in length. Two current deep-bored tunnel projects in the area are worth noting: the Sound Transit light rail tunnel through Beacon Hill and the Brightwater sewage tunnel....experience shows that in the long run, elevated structures wear out much sooner and require more maintenance than tunnels. Full life-cycle costs and benefits favor a tunnel over an elevated replacement.....

The Viaduct is part of State Route 99, a major regional roadway. It handles about 110,000 vehicle trips daily, about two-thirds of them thru traffic that's mercifully zipping past downtown. With more than $2 billion in needed pavement and congestion reduction work on closely parallel, jammed Interstate 5 remaining unfunded, it's more important than ever before to provide an adequate alternative for north-south downtown bypass traffic on SR 99. Highway pricing is being developed for the replacement of the State Route 520 Floating Bridge, possibly including the parallel cross-Lake Washington span on Interstate 90. A electronically-tolled HOT lane pilot project is already underway on State Route 167 in southeastern King County, and there's electronic tolling on the new southbound span of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The long Eastside north-south corridor of SR 522, I-405 and SR 167 is a prime candidate for expanded HOT lanes, at some point in the future. Electronic tolling is already here and will continue to spread. Against this regional backdrop, HOT lanes in a deep-bored tunnel replacement for the Viaduct would encourage more high-occupancy vehicles on SR 99, and increased transit use.

The Viaduct project's own partnership agreement signed by the governor, mayor and county executive makes clear that thru traffic flow and the economy are key considerations:

Any solution to the Alaskan Way Viaduct must optimize the ability to move people and goods in and through Seattle in an efficient manner....(and)...must sustain the city, region and state's economic vitality.

A deep-bored tunnel will be more durable and a better investment than an elevated replacement. It will open up the downtown waterfront to green, recreational space and encourage new, carefully-vetted development beneficial to taxpayers and the economy. Unlike the so-called "surface-transit option" which would raze the Viaduct and not replace it, a deep-bored tolled tunnel would keep traffic moving, and could demonstrate innovative contracting strategies in the public interest.

Despite the vehement and visceral objections of some critics to the very idea of a deep-bored tunnel to replace the Viaduct, it deserves very serious consideration.