After stressing funding shortfalls facing King County Metro's bus service and declining gas tax revenues for road projects, Carlyle explores several important macro-level policy options for funding improved mobility.

...the long-term, big picture is important and we can’t let the battles over the tunnel, 520 bridge and other mega projects be a conversation killer about our broader structural challenges. Several ideas are on the front burner. Tolling is making a comeback, as evidenced by the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and soon on the 520 bridge. It makes sense for the people who use facilities the most to pay a greater share of the construction and maintenance costs for a specific facility or geographic area....comprehensive regional tolling - with e-tags and other solutions to help make it easy logistically - makes good economic sense so long as we have a real action plan....

Another, if controversial, idea is charging according to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), tracked by a transponder. This would take into account actual road usage, whether or not a vehicle uses gasoline, electricity or something else. It also opens up some interesting new policy ideas such as integrating car insurance, parking (no more parking meters!), tolls, etc., into one system that is able to charge drivers accordingly and accurately. Obviously, a concern about privacy is one major obstacle to this idea, so we’ll have to continue looking at innovative ways to address this very legitimate concern.....

A third option is the car-tab fee model and using the funds for direct transportation services so the money doesn’t disappear into the institutional bureaucracy of government but rather goes for real services on the ground.

Kudos to Rep. Carlyle for highlighting in a community forum the need to develop long-term surface transportation funding strategies. Regional (electronic, time-variable) tolling and further consideration of a vehicle mileage tax - along with a local-option motor vehicle excise tax applied at annual license renewal time - are all important options that our Cascadia Center and others have advocated.

More than that, Carlyle's commentary is especially timely.

SR 167 and SR 509 could see some or perhaps all lanes tolled to help pay for important extensions, while I-405 could be in line for two express toll lanes in each direction. Another study will help evaluate whether to also toll the I-205 bridge between Washington and Oregon along with the planned new I-5 bridge. In addition, the legislature's Joint Transportation Committee is conducting a new and more refined study of future transportation funding strategies, including the vehicle mileage tax.

The changing landscape may also necessitate a fresh conversation about a thorny issue. As Rep. Carlyle, the House's Assistant Majority Whip, puts it:

A final issue is naturally one of governance. Should we create a mega transportation agency (and inevitably, bureaucracy)?

Yes, we should. It would make a lot more sense than dividing the planning, prioritizing and funding between the state, and a myriad of transit agencies, and regional and local entities. The end result would be more robust funding, better inter-modal transit and more predictable travel times on the region's streets and highways.

I'll give the final word here to Rep. Carlyle, who had some additional and very apropos thoughts in his own blog post about his transportation op-ed.

On a larger level, I feel strongly that our fundamental challenge today isn’t left versus right, progressive versus conservative…it is those who are willing to tackle bold systems issues and challenges versus those who feel paralyzed by the institutional bureaucracy of government. It is, at the risk of making you snicker, about hope versus fear; courage versus timid approaches; bold thinking versus modest excuses.

We need to have the courageous honesty to acknowledge that many of our systems like how we fund transportation do not work well; we are an entrepreneurial city and state with innovation and creativity in the private sector. Unfortunately, that entrepreneurial spirit does not frequently extend to the public sector. We can be so much more than what we’ve become.

RELATED:

"Flexible Tolling: The Key to Solving Our Congestion," Crosscut, 4/1/09

"What Is It About Mileage Taxes Obama Doesn't Understand?" Crosscut, 3/5/09

"Managing, Planning and Funding Transportation," Cascadia Center

State Rep. Reuven Carlyle's blog

The reviews are mixed. In the Los Angeles Times, Todd Darling writes:

The bill...proposes a market-based "carbon trading" plan that mirrors a European system initiated in 2005. This plan requires polluters to obtain government-issued "carbon credits," which then allow them to pollute above the agreed-on limit....the Waxman-Markey plan...gives 85% of the pollution credits to the biggest polluters for free....

In Europe, the distribution of free pollution credits to industries failed to establish a strong carbon market. In turn, the weak market in carbon credits failed to generate the money needed to fund new technology. And because there was a glut of free credits, polluters that went over the emissions limit could buy the necessary credits cheaply. So important states, such as Britain, continue to exceed the pollution limits.

Faced with disappointing results, Europe began auctioning off more of the credits in 2006. But the damage was done....The complex European trading scheme, started with free pollution credits, has not produced dramatic cuts in pollution or dramatic developments in technology or a robust market in carbon credits. The Financial Times of London was blunt: "Carbon markets leave much room for unverifiable manipulation. [Carbon] taxes are better, partly because they are less vulnerable to such improprieties."

Largely left out of the current debate are questions about nuclear power. House Republicans say reducing CO2 depends on more atomic development. And for good reason. Nuclear power generation produces zero greenhouses gases and the technology far outpaces renewables like wind and solar in the amount of electricity it can add to the grid. But public fear of reactor problems and radioactive waste stopped new construction of nuclear power plants decades ago.

European countries that rely much more exclusively on nuclear power have made advances in efficiency of the plants, which create less waste, and also ways to recycle and reuse spent rods. We would welcome its development here. But with 104 nuclear reactors currently supplying only 20 percent of our power, we would need to build many more plants to offset our use of fossil fuels in time to meet the 2050 deadline. Unless Congress truly believes it can convince enough communities to accept scores of new nuclear plants across our nation, Waxman- Markey's goals exist in fantasy.

...Fashioned to avoid appearing like a new tax, the measure nevertheless would work like one, as the higher costs of meeting the caps get passed on to consumers. The measure risks hurting our competitiveness globally without effectively lowering global greenhouse gases. Congress should instead consider a simpler carbon tax, creating a "nuclear-arms race" to harness atomic power to replace fossil fuels and provide incentives to speed new-energy innovation.

Time magazine's environmental writer Bryan Walsh notes the bill:

...will achieve most of its stated carbon cuts through offsets and through improving energy efficiency, rather than encouraging the growth of low-carbon renewable electricity.....over the long run, we need to cut carbon out of our energy supply - and that means vastly increasing the role of renewables like solar and wind, along with low-carbon sources like nuclear and even coal with carbon capture. That will require plenty of hard scientific research to bring down the price of renewables - they have to be competitive not just in the U.S., but in countries like India and China, which will emit the vast majority of new carbon emissions in the future.

Andrew C. Revkin writes for the New York Times on how the expected growth to nine billion of the world's population by 2050 will affect our ability to "balance human affairs with the planet's limits." In a blog post titled, "The Climate Bill In Climate Context," he argues that the response to global warming requires a global commitment.

Any flow of money for deploying less-polluting energy technology in developing countries is likely to be constrained in any final climate bill by the Senate, which has expressed big concerns about the United States subsidizing the technological advancement of emerging competitors. The bottom line remains, as the International Energy Agency warned in its 2008 World Energy Outlook, that 97 percent of projected growth in emissions of carbon dioxide from energy use through 2030 (without aggressive action) will come in developing countries, with three-fourths of that growth in China, India and the Middle East. The pace of emissions and long-term warming largely will be determined by how the Obama administration and other leaders of industrialized powers handle that reality.

Accenting that point, India's environment minister stresses to Bloomberg News, that huge and fast-growing country won't be considering any limits on aggregate carbon dioxide emissions.

MORE:

"Bound To Burn," Peter Huber, City Journal, Spring, 2009

"Nuclear Power Should Not Be Blindly Dismissed As Part Of Total Energy Solution," Sid Morrison, Seattle Times, 7/1/09

"Exxon's Tillerson; Give Me A Carbon Tax, Not Cap and Trade," WSJ Environmental Capital blog, 1/8/09

"Carbon Credits Were A Great Idea, But The Benefits Were Illusory," Wired, 5/19/08

"Smart Taxes: An Open Invitation To Join The Pigou Club," N. Gregory Mankiw, Harvard University economist, talk to Eastern Economic Assn., 3/8/08

"Time To Tax Carbon," Los Angeles Times editorial, 5/28/07

The urgency of acting promptly, i.e. before the Highway Trust Fund runs dry in mid-August, was reinforced by a June 22 letter from Governors Ed Rendell (PA) and James Douglas (VT), to the congressional leadership. Writing in their capacity as chairman and vice-chairman respectively of the National Governors Association, they urged the lawmakers to pass an extension to eliminate the impending shortfall "as soon as possible" so that states can continue planning for and funding critical highway programs. The letter left a clear implication that the governors considered ensuring the continuity of funding offered by Sec. LaHood’s proposal to take precedence over a long-term reform of the program - especially given the uncertainty of finding the money to pay for the long-term program.

Further support for the Administration’s proposal came from the Senate side.

Cracks also began to appear in the support of the bill’s even staunchest advocates. James Corless, director of the Transportation for America (T4 America) coalition, a steadfast supporter of Rep. Oberstar’s efforts, admitted that the legislation was not yet ready for prime time, having left many questions unanswered. "Streetsblog," a lively online discussion forum on topics of "livability," with a pronounced green bent, likewise turned critical. Elana Schor, Streetblogs’ regular Washington columnist, referred to the "quixotic nature of the House quest to pass a new transportation bill without support from the Senate or the administration." "All hope for this particular bill is not yet lost, but a number of very difficult questions will have to be answered to turn this blueprint into a bold new transportation law" noted another Streetsblog contributor.

The leadership of the House T&I Committee, however, remained defiant. "The challenges facing the nation’s surface transportation system cannot be addressed by making simple alterations to the existing set of surface transportation programs," committee chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) contended in a statement accompanying the release of the marked up subcommittee bill. Added Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), chairman of the Highways and Transit subcommittee, "We must finish the bill in 2009 so we don’t disrupt the 2010 transportation construction season." Forty-three Democratic members of the Committee followed up with a letter to President Obama, expressing "profound disappointment in your Administration’s proposal to extend the current surface transportation programs for 18 months."

Senate EPW Committee: Overwhelmingly in Favor of an Extension

Toward the end of the week, however, it became clear that the House Committee attempt to push its bill to passage during this session of Congress was doomed. At a June 25 hearing of the Senate EPW Committee on "Impacts of Expected Highway Trust Fund Insolvency" Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) spoke for most of his colleagues when he said, "the only option we have is an extension long enough to afford an opportunity to work on a long term bill - and get it right." He did not speak, however, for the soon retiring Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) who made an impassioned plea to go ahead with the bill as drafted by the House T&I Committee. EPW Committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) disagreed: "Until I know how we are going to pay for it, I am not ready to move ahead with a long term bill," she announced.

After a lengthy and heated discussion, the Committee agreed on a two-track strategy: approving (by week of July 20) an 18-month "clean" extension of the existing law (presumably, this means without earmarks and without even the minor policy reforms desired by the Administration), "in order to bring stability to the program in the short run," while committing itself to work on a multi-year bill.

The Senate committee left it up to the Administration to come up with the $20 billion cash infusion necessary to ensure the continued solvency of the Highway Trust Fund through March 2011. One possibility, proposed by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA): amend the stimulus bill to permit the use of its money. Another suggestion, proposed by Sen. Inhofe (R-OK): recoup the interest due on the Highway Trust Fund (amounting to $13 billion).

The pressure of time - roughly six weeks before the Highway Trust Fund is expected to run out of money - left the Senate Committee little choice but to proceed with an extension as proposed by Secretary LaHood. As Sen. Boxer pointed out, "there is no consensus today on how to pass a "transformative" bill." Will conditions be any more favorable to enacting major reforms 18 months from now? Much depends on the economy and the price of fuel prevailing at the time. The Administration may be betting that the economic climate by mid-2011 will have improved sufficiently to allow the President to propose a gas tax increase without suffering serious political repercussions.

With mid-term elections behind them, Congress also might be less reluctant to vote for a tax hike. But to fund the proposed $500 billion program ($83 billion/year), the federal gasoline tax would need to be increased by 24 cents/gallon (current federal fuel tax and other excise taxes are expected to generate no more than $235 billion at current rates over the FY 2010-2015 period, leaving a $265 billion funding gap.) Will Congress find the political will to vote such an increase 18 months from now, with presidential elections approaching? And will OPEC cooperate by keeping the price of gas roughly as it is today? Both are legitimate questions but no one at the Senate hearing chose to speculate on them.

The first question has been pushed to the forefront by the Obama Administration. Last Thursday, Transportation Secretary LaHood surprised the transportation community and members of Congress with an unexpected announcement:  the Administration will seek an 18-month extension of the current surface transportation authorization. An estimated $13-$17 billion will be needed to fund the program extension.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, who will steer the Senate version of the authorization bill, quickly endorsed Secretary LaHood’s proposal. "This will give us the necessary time to pass a more comprehensive multi-year bill with stable and reliable funding," she stated.

Ensuring the continuity of funding offered by Sec. LaHood's proposal seems to take precedence in some Senators’ minds over long-term reform of the program. Needless to say, Rep. Oberstar is of a different mind. He called any temporary extension of the law beyond September 30 completely unacceptable.

What has motivated the Administration to seek a delay in enacting a new transportation law? Secretary LaHood has joined a growing body of doubters that the crowded legislative calendar - controversial climate legislation, contentious health care reform, a Supreme Court confirmation, among others - would permit the House and the Senate to reach agreement on a new bill before the current law expires at the end of September, thus leaving the next years’s program funding in a precarious state.

"Even if the House were to pass a bill by September 30, it is highly unlikely that the Senate would," LaHood said in an interview. "So rather than stringing Congress along with three-month or six-month extensions, let’s face reality," he added, to justify the unusually long extension that would delay a new transportation bill by a full year and a half.

Other motivation may also lie behind Sec. LaHood’s proposal. The White House may reason that by mid-2011 the economic climate will have recovered sufficiently to allow the Administration to propose a gas tax increase without suffering serious political repercussions. With mid-term elections behind them, Congress also might be less reluctant to vote for a tax hike. Moreover, by pushing enactment of the new legislation closer to the next presidential election, the Obama White House could take credit for a major piece of legislation.

Another motive for a postponement could be the Administration’s desire to assert a more active role in influencing the multi-year legislation. Secretary LaHood may have taken to heart the advice he has received from several sources, that he should take a more proactive role in shaping the surface transportation legislation and not surrender all the initiative to the House T&I Committee. However, he has been unable to devote much attention to the bill, having had his hands full since taking office with the economic recovery bill, the high speed legislation and recruitment of key personnel.

His senior policy team is likewise spread thin. Some key policy officials - such as Deputy Secretary John Porcari, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Polly Trottenberger and FHWA Chief Counsel Karen Hedlund - are new to their jobs or still await confirmation. An 18-month postponement would afford the Secretary and his team a welcome pause "to catch their breath and get up to speed" as one U.S. DOT watcher put it to us. He thinks the DOT leadership would welcome a chance to revisit some of the provisions in Oberstar’s bill.

Finally, the decision to seek an extension could be motivated by the Administration’s legitimate concern that Congress has not put forward a solution to the central problem: how to raise the additional $265 billion needed to pay for the proposed $500 billion highway/transit/high speed rail program ($350 billion for highways and highway safety, $100 billion for public transportation and $50 billion for high speed rail ). According to estimates developed by the National Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission and the Congressional Budget Office, the federal fuel tax and other excise taxes are expected to generate no more than $235 billion in revenue under current law over the FY 2010-2015 period.

The House T&I Committee bill does not include a revenue chapter. That is the responsibility of the House Ways and Means Committee whose subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures will hold a hearing on the funding options on June 25. At this time, no one knows what position the Ways and Means committee will ultimately adopt concerning the level of funding and how to bridge the potential $265 billion gap. Equally unknown are the positions of the House leadership and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, whose assent to the bill’s funding provisions will be necessary.

One possible source of supplementary investment capital could be the much discussed National Infrastructure Bank. A bill that would establish such a bank has been introduced in the House by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and 26 Democratic co-sponsors (HR 2521). The proposed Bank, modeled after the European Investment Bank, would invest in transportation, environmental, energy and telecommunications infrastructure projects. Rep. Oberstar’s proposal would locate the Bank within the Transportation Department and capitalize it at a much higher level ($100 billion). The Bank would fund three new initiatives: Metropolitan Mobility and Access, Projects of National Significance and High Speed Rail. The "Bank" would be essentially a federal credit assistance program, to be financed either through Treasury or through externally raised private capital.

Any decisions about the level and form of the Bank's capitalization are probably out of the hands of the T&I committee. Like Rep. DeLauro’s bill, the T&I Committee's Bank proposal could be referred to Rep. Barney Frank's (D-MA) Financial Services Committee or to the Ways and Means Committee. The possibility of enactment of either version of the bank during this session of Congress is uncertain.

Rep. Oberstar’s transportation bill leaves few other funding/financing options on the table. It explicitly forecloses tolling of the Interstate Highway System - a potentially large source of revenue — even though consumer surveys show that tolls are generally viewed more favorably than higher gas taxes.

The bill also severely constrains the use of private investment capital and concession-based public-private partnerships, approaches that potentially could be a source of significant supplementary revenue for transportation infrastructure. The bill would establish a new Office of Public Benefit within the Federal Highway Administration to review and approve (or reject) State plans for toll roads and to oversee new federal requirements for public-private partnership agreements. Instead of doing its best to create a climate favorable to tolling and public-private partnerships, the bill would appear to set up new barriers that could seriously discourage private investors from participating in the nation’s infrastructure renewal.

In the coming days, we can expect much discussion and analysis of the T&I Committee’s 100-page report that outlines the proposed policy and procedural reforms. Let us hope that some of the deep thinking will also be devoted to figuring out where the money will come from.

Today in Washington, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood unveiled the long-awaited guidelines that states and regions will use to compete for economic recovery funds for high-speed rail.

"The time has finally come for the United States to get serious about building a national network of high-speed rail corridors we can all be proud of,” Secretary Ray LaHood said. “High-speed rail can reduce traffic congestion and link up with light rail, subways and buses to make travel more convenient and our communities more livable.”

According to the LaHood's statement, the "guidelines...require rigorous financial and environmental planning to make sure projects are worthy of investment and likely to be successful."

The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration held meetings throughout the country this spring, including one in Seattle that coincided with Cascadia's Rail Week Conference. The Cascadia Corridor in the Northwest, is one of 10 corridors named by the Administration as possible recipients of federal funding for high-speed rail. The Cascadia Corridor and others around the country have to move fast -- the deadline for public comment and all pre-applications for funding is July 10.

Here's what: Interstate 80 across Wyoming is wearing down, traffic is expected to more than double by 2037, and money is scarce. As the Interstate Atlas shows, I-80 is an important route to our Cascadia region, via a short spur to I-84, which then runs through Boise to Portland and I-5 just south of the border with Washington; in Sacramento, it also connects directly with I-5, the major artery defining the West Coast Corridor from the U.S.-Mexico border to the U.S.-Canada border. I-80 runs the length of the country, east to west. Trucks will comprise 57 percent of the I-80 load in Wyoming in 2037, up from about half now. Forty percent of the highway in the state is in poor to moderate condition, and 50 percent will need major rehabilitation by 2013. So, as the Laramie Boomerang reports, the state is already in the second phase of an I-80 tolling study that's looking at several options to fund current and future road maintenance needs. Tolling would be electronic, with vehicle and license plate cameras and radar detectors mounted above the highway. The main options are:

Operators could stand to pay up to $116 per truck in tolls to cross the state, according to the Wyoming Department of Transportation. Any more and they would tend to divert to other routes. Permission is required from the Federal Highway Administration to toll interstate highways, but this would likely pose no obstacle because the federal government simply lacks the resources its gas tax once provided for highway upkeep and construction, after four decades of steep growth in highway usage and ever-mounting maintenance and expansion needs. Tolling has already been allowed and implemented on a number of other interstates. And Wyoming's own gas tax, for better or worse, is a scant 14 cents per gallon and unlikely to be hiked by any significant degree. That Mustang won't ride.

Unlike more urbanized locales, the issue is upkeep, not that plus congestion. Wyoming's prescient attempt to figure out how to keep I-80 in good repair is a useful reminder that highways we may take for granted aren't free to maintain. The story also underscores the crucial role of freight in the economy. It's great to buy local when we can, but that's often simply not possible. All lofty rhetoric aside, we want what we want when we want it, and price matters. So, there are lots of trucks rumbling down I-80 through Wyoming, and many more to come. Take the same reality and multiply the traffic volumes exponentially, and you begin to get the scope, nationally. Moving more freight via rails is a good idea - and should be pursued energetically. But that too will take many billions of dollars, in this case for new infrastructure, and serve only a portion of growing freight volume.

In addition to evaluating specific in-state revenue scenarios, the study consultants - Parsons Brinkerhoff - will also produce a stand-alone memo reporting on outreach to neighboring states along I-80 (Nebraska and Utah) on a joint approach to tolling the corridor, and the possibility of pursuing a public-private partnership to help assure the highway's continued viability.

As for the main menu options right now, a first-phase feasibility study completed last October by Parsons seems to all but rule out the new, tolled truck-only lanes as too expensive, at $7 billion, leaving two other "all lanes tolled" possibilities. One - the so-called "baseline" alternative - would entail no expansion of the highway and raise $3.01 billion between 2009 and 2037, with the lowest annual maintenance and operations costs. The other would add a lane in each direction, with each inside (left) lane for cars only, and trucks keeping to the right except to use the center lane for passing. This would cost $2.8 billion, with tolling raising $3.21 billion by 2037. The feasibility study also indicates additional funds could be generated if a politically-problematic attempt to raise the state's exceptionally low fuel taxes succeeded.

Although the feasibility study is only a first-phase product and more detailed analysis including community input is occurring now, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the baseline alternative - with its $3 billion in revenues and lowest costs by far - will be the final choice. Maintenance and operations needs include work already forestalled, ongoing work with annual price tag of at least $25 million, and an every-15-years major rehabilitation and repair program that actually unfolds over the course of several years. According the feasibility study, that latter effort alone would cost about $1.1 billion in the cycle pegged to 2024.

Results of the current, second phase of the I-80 tolling study will be presented September 1 to the Wyoming legislature.

Connections between where people live and work are the essence of public transit. The 42-mile Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail corridor between the cities of Snohomish and Renton — including a spur from Woodinville to Redmond — is ripe with potential. Or so it seemed in 2007, when the Port of Seattle said it would buy the line for $107 million and issue bonds to raise the cash. In March, the Port announced the sale was postponed because the nation's credit markets were frozen. In the absence of a financial thaw, the Port has not said what comes next. The lingering question of who will buy and preserve the right of way along the corridor splashes cold water on the excitement about a rail-and-trail combination between growing Eastside population centers.

In late May, the Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center hosted state and federal lawmakers, mayors, and state and local transportation officials at meetings in Portland and Seattle to learn more about high-speed rail from Oregon's Willamette Valley to the Canadian border. They were also looking at how freight lines have been converted to multiple-use corridors that accommodate walkers, cyclists, commuter rail and freight. Portland's metropolitan transportation agency, Tri-Met, recently opened the Westside Express Service, 14.7 miles of rail and five stations.

Cascadia's template for the Eastside rail corridor might well be the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District, which is installing passenger rail service and a 12-foot-wide path for pedestrians and cyclists along 70 miles of Northwestern Pacific Railroad right of way. John Nemeth, SMART's rail planning manager, spoke to a dinner gathering at Novelty Hill Winery in Woodinville. The setting was convivial, but the tourism potential of regional rail service is not lost on the local wine industry or the mayors from Bellingham, Leavenworth and Woodinville.

In California, from Cloverdale on the north to Larkspur on the south, the emphasis might appear to be on getting to a ferry connection to San Francisco. Instead, Nemeth said, commute patterns are changing to focus on population and job centers within the two counties. SMART is fueled by a quarter-cent sales tax passed in 2008 with 70-percent approval. Service begins in 2014.

According to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, SMART does face some financial challenges resulting from a downturn in expected sales tax revenues and changes in the bond market. The line's opening may be delayed slightly, or perhaps built to slightly less than the full 70-mile length at the outset. Many public transit systems, current and planned, face similar challenges at present. The solutions will lie jointly in an upturn in the economy, finding new ways to economize, and in some cases, developing ancillary funding tools.

For more on Cascadia Rail Week, read this informative summary posted earlier here at our blog by my colleague Mike Wussow. There's also this link-rich news coverage summary.

Hence the search for more secure and green sources of fuel, from renewables-powered electricity, and - one day hopefully not to far off - widely available, second-generation net-green biofuels (algae, biomass, cellulosic methanol, anyone?).

As the Natural Resources Defense Council points out, today's popular hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius are able to run on electricity only when the battery is charged by the onboard gas engine or regenerative braking; in contrast, plug-in hybrids charge up, first, directly from household (or other similar) outlets, and when that electricity runs out then they run as conventional hybrids. They use less fuel than conventional hybrids, and won't let you get stranded when the charge runs out, as can occur with purely electric vehicles. Although to be fair, reasonable trip planning can obviate that problem with EVs, and efforts are underway to develop a public charging infrastructure for EVs and PHEVs - one important example being Washington State Rep. Deb Eddy's HB 1481, passed into law recently. Then too, some of the world's top engineers, including those at U.S. national laboratories in the Northwest, are continuing vital research into how peak-period demand on the electrical grid can be managed in the future, when many, many fleet and personal PHEVs might be charging, during after-work hours. At the same time, engineers are also looking at how charging durations can be sped up - particularly in public locations along urban region arteries and interstate highway corridors.

Despite the promise of both PHEVs and EVs, informed skepticism isn't hard to find these days, especially with respect to the plug-ins. Even from the quarters of our nation's highest-profile advocate of green transportation, the White House. Earlier this year, prior to you and I becoming majority owners of ailing automaker General Motors, President Barack Obama's advisors issued a "Viability Determination" that included this warning on GM's new PHEV model, the Chevrolet Volt:

GM is at least one generation behind Toyota on advanced, “green” powertrain development. In an attempt to leapfrog Toyota, GM has devoted significant resources to the Chevy Volt. While the Volt holds promise, it is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable.

More raindrops on the parade. The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog accented a recent General Accountability Office report warning federal agency fleet managers of the seeming risks inherent now in buying PHEVs; and even Toyota is wondering aloud, in the New York Times, about whether PHEVs will have a limited appeal, barring battery-pack breakthroughs.

But MIT Technology Review's Energy Editor Kevin Bullis warns not to dismiss too quickly the distinct possibility that PHEVs will have a transformative effect as the technology ripens.

While the Volt might not be the perfect solution to reducing petroleum consumption--for one thing, at a rumored $40,000 apiece, it will be too expensive to sell in very large numbers--it seems at the least to be a step in the right direction. Indeed, it represents an overall direction that the administration supports, as seen by its emphasis on plug-in hybrids....GM will likely sell all of its first run of Volts, even at their high cost (more than 48,000 people have indicated that they want to buy the Volt). And economies of scale and advances in battery technology could bring costs down, allowing more people to buy the car. The wait would be worth it. Eventually, plug-in hybrids could allow most people to commute without using any gasoline.

Even with "dirty"-powered electricity there's a net green gain at the tailpipe, versus an engine burning traditional gasoline. And if the electricity comes from renewables, as policy-makers and the private sector will increasingly seek to ensure, that's even better. Meanwhile, GM has opened a new advanced battery laboratory. Call it a sign of the times. But what about PHEV mileage? Some pilot program tests drew skepticism when miles per gallon turned out to be less than hyped. Turns out there's a fairly simple answer, report experts interviewed by National Public Radio's "Market Watch" in a segment aired just two days ago: achieving top-range PHEV mileage depends on driver education, and sometimes, making sure to plug in your plug-in when it's resting.

James Francfort tracks plug-in hybrids for the Department of Energy:

JAMES FRANCFORT: We've demonstrated the potential to get 100, 200, 300, up to 400 miles-per-gallon depending on how the vehicles are driven.

Trouble is in early tests, Francfort found plug-ins hybrids weren't necessarily getting much better gas mileage than conventional hybrids.

Paul Scott of Plug in America says it's all about teaching consumers how to drive the cars.

PAUL SCOTT: You have to obviously charge the batteries.

Some test drivers weren't, and that meant the cars relied more on gas. And gunning the engine does the same thing. So if the cars are sold without any thought to consumer training:

SCOTT: Well, in that case then people might not buy them.

But if consumers are properly educated, Ed Kjaer (of Southern California Edison) says drivers could change their priorities.

Stay tuned. This one's got legs.

On the show I outlined why we at Cascadia Center believe a connected system of tolled express lanes on major highways and state routes is one key part a of a future-facing strategy to help ensure regional mobility, transportation choices and economic security, as Central Puget Sound's population continues to grow - by about 40 percent over the next 30 years.

Here's the MP3 file of the hour; and here's the full transcript. For now, I'll leave you with my closing thoughts to Dori after what diplomats would call "a frank exchange of views." This has to do with the distinction between tolling only a few specific facilities, such as bridges and tunnels, versus a more comprehensive approach based on highway corridors.

Are bits and pieces better? Or is the seamless approach better? Remember the old HOV lanes? They'd end, and you'd be frustrated. Well, if we're going to have tolled express lanes, it should be in a continuous, seamless system. We'll get more bang for our buck, and better service.

Thanks, Dori.

Will more Washington roads take their toll on drivers? That's the question posed in the headline of an article written by Aubrey Cohen of the seattlepi.com today, and which quotes my colleague, Cascadia Center Senior Fellow Matt Rosenberg extensively.

Discovery Institute Founder and President Bruce Chapman comments on the issue over at Discovery Blog under the post "For Whom the Highway Tolls."

The country needs a general upgrade of infrastructure. Billions are now available through the stimulus bill, but still not enough. The emphasis on "shovel-ready" projects in the stimulus package, though understandable as a recession-fighter, is unhelpful when the need is for serious long term planning.

The seattlepi.com story quotes heavily from a recent Rosenberg article about tolling in Crosscut.

As most of our regular readers know, this week as part of Cascadia Rail Week, Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute (along with a host of industry and community co-sponsors listed at the end of this post) has been rekindling the debate about national high-speed passenger rail and especially the development of service in the Northwest's "Cascadia Corridor." With the strongest commitment to rail in generations (President Obama’s budget request is $8 billion to upgrade and expand rail lines), one of Cascadia’s longest running concerns is getting new life.

"Rail Week" began Tuesday evening at the Columbia Tower Club in downtown Seattle with a welcoming dinner honoring Vancouver, B.C.'s Mayor Gregor Robertson. It ends tonight with a closing dinner and discussion at Novelty Hill Winery in Woodinville, Wash., one of several of the cities on Seattle's "Eastside" that would be served by a 42-mile Eastside commuter "rails and trails" corridor from Snohomish in the north to Renton in the South. (View the week's agenda here.)

The Tuesday and Friday evening bookends are emblematic of the breadth of the rail week sessions as well as the issue as a whole. On the one hand, Cascadia is seeking solutions to national and regional passenger rail challenges, exemplified in part by Mayor Robertson's participation; the mayor is a strong advocate of high-speed passenger rail between his city and points south along the West Coast. On the other hand, Cascadia recognizes that the success and development of shorter commuter rail corridors such as Seattle's Eastside will be just as critical to the eventual overall health of a future passenger rail system in the Northwest and the country. "Rail Week," which has so far included a train excursion, policy-focused luncheon sessions, and a well-attended public lecture at Seattle's City Hall, has been designed to bring attention to both ends of the spectrum and everything in between.

Perhaps the most exciting (and refreshingly unorthodox for a policy-oriented conference) part of the week was Wednesday's sold-out train tour on Amtrak Cascades from Seattle to Portland, Ore. Cascadia Center organized a delegation to ride the train between the two cities. (Karen Rae, Deputy Administrator for the Federal Railroad Administration, and in Seattle for an FRA field hearing about high-speed rail, joined the delegation for part of that trip.) Upon arrival, the 75-person delegation, joined by several dozen more conference participants, discussed high-speed rail (technology, legislation, etc.) and Amtrak in the corridor. Later that day, participants toured and rode Portland's Westside Express and MAX to get a sense of how Seattle might use similar technology for its Eastside corridor.

A highlight on Wednesday was a chance to hear from keynote speaker and U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, a senior member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and Chairman of its Highways and Transit Subcommittee. Congressman DeFazio emphasized the need for the United States to really focus its priorities on national high-speed passenger rail. As reported on Oregon Public Broadcasting, and referring to his hope that high-speed rail would make the commute between notoriously congested Portland and Seattle much easier, he said: "If just a fraction of the money the nation spends on space travel was spent on high speed trains, the 70 minute Seattle/Portland commute could soon be an everyday occurrence." I encourage you to listen to the broadcast.

For Thursday and Friday, the conference moved from Portland back to Seattle, with sessions at the Washington Athletic Club in downtown Seattle, a public lecture hosted by Councilmember Jan Drago at Seattle City Hall, a luncheon in Snohomish (north of Seattle and one end of the line for the Eastside rails and trails corridor), and tonight's concluding dinner at Novelty Hill. The so-called "takeaways" of the conference have been many and are collected nicely in the media coverage listed at the end of the post. But this article about the Thursday luncheon session from SeattlePI.com's Aubrey Cohen perhaps best highlights the need for managing expectations for how fast high-speed rail can be built in this country and how fast those trains could travel once the infrastructure glue dries.

"True" high-speed rail would exceed 150 mph, but the Amtrak Cascades line between Eugene, Ore., and Vancouver, B.C., is more likely to see incremental progress from the current top speed of 79 mph to between 110 and 125 mph (the top potential speed of the current Talgo trains), Cascadia Project rail fellow Ray Chambers said at a forum in downtown Seattle on Thursday.

As with most public policy shifts, success in moving toward true high-speed rail in America and in the Cascadia Corridor can best be seen through measuring "incremental progress" as Mr. Chambers says, and not just in the speed of trains but in the development of corridors. For its part, Cascadia Center has been focused on the rail issue since 1993 and will continue to bring the right decision-makers to the table to make progress on this critical transportation issue. And as I wrote several months ago, for better or worse, never has the opportunity for success been more likely.

The politics of rail has always been complicated and multi-faceted. Not much of that has changed, even with the planned largest federal investment in decades. But judging by the excitement and thoughtful discussion at Cascadia Rail Week, among leaders in government and industry, at least one very important thing has changed. Comity has returned to the debate and there seems to be genuine desire not to let this once-in-several-generations opportunity slip by. Maybe the stars have aligned to finally, so to speak, put the country's rail program back on track.

Key Press Coverage of Cascadia Rail Week (as of Friday, May 29, 2009)

High-speed rail dreams depend on dedicated tracks, SeattlePI.com

Mayor Gregor Robertson and Karen Rae (FRA) discuss cross-border rail, KOMO 1000 Radio

High-speed rail along the West Coast is a 'no-brainer', SeattlePI.com

Stimulus funds wanted for improved rail line, The Seattle Times

High-Speed Rail Supporters Meet In Portland, Oregon Public Broadcasting

Co-Sponsors of Cascadia Rail Week 2009

Andrew Bary's recent piece "The Long and Binding Road," in Barron's  has been widely noticed. "The credit market collapse and political opposition have all but killed the U.S. highway privatization trend," the respected commentator opined in his article.  What is more, Bary wrote, the Indiana Toll Road deal "was one of the most illogical prices paid for any major piece of transportation infrastructure during the bubble period of 2005 to 2007,"  suggesting that Macquarie made a huge miscalculation.  Gov. Mitch Daniel's comment  ("It was the best deal since Manhattan was sold for beads...") did not help, implying that the State got the better of the naive Macquarie. The article concluded, "for toll road investors, what had promised to be a pleasant ride has turned into a painful trip," citing Macquarie's shares tumbling 50% in the past year.

On Capitol Hill, Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) made news and raised concern with their proposals to change the tax treatment of brownfield P3 concessions and create other disincentives for private infrastructure investment. All in all, it's been a sobering month for PPP advocates.

The good news in my judgment is that, despite these recent reversals, the longer-term prospects for PPPs and private investment in infrastructure appear surprisingly good. A favorable policy climate at both the state and federal level is one contributing factor.

The Mississippi, North Carolina and California legislatures have passed PPP-enabling legislation, suggesting that the sentiments among state legislators are running in favor of private investment in roads and other infrastructure.

On Capitol Hill, the earlier signs of suspicion toward PPPs by certain influential lagislators have been replaced by modulated expressions of support. This suggests that PPPs, the Infrastructure Bank, TIFIA, Private Activity Bonds and other supportive private financing measures will receive favorable treatment in the upcoming surface transportation legislation, the Bingaman-Grassley initiative to the contrary notwithstanding.

Signals from the Administration are equally encouraging. U.S. DOT guidance on the discretionary $1.5 billion grant program included in the Recovery Act for projects of national/regional significance includes positive references to the role of private participation. Transportation Secretary LaHood, our sources tell us, has made it clear to recent visitors that PPP will have to be part of the mix in new transportation funding.

Of course, from the private sector point of view, there never was any doubt about the appeal of investing in private infrastructure because highways, bridges, ports and even parking garages are long-lived assets that bring a steady and predictable stream of income.

There are signs that, despite the recent financial upheaval, institutional investors such as pension funds remain interested in infrastructure as an investment asset class. And they find willing partners in the cash-strapped state and local jurisdictions which have few other options to private capital to supplement their inadequate public resources when new infrastructure is concerned.

However, as the weight of opinion in a recent P3 roundtable on National Journal Transportation Blog suggests, the nature and structure of PPP transactions will undergo a significant if not radical modification. Highly leveraged deals, inflated valuations based on overly optimistic expectations of future operating income (i.e. earnings after interest, taxes, amortization and, importantly, capital expenditures beyond routine maintenance) , and dramatic upfront payments are a thing of the past. Borrowing costs will rise as the capital markets take a more conservative approach to risk assessment.

Greater attention will be paid to economic uncertainties as they affect toll receipts and to the need for capital improvements over the entire life of the concession. As one blogger, former Deputy DOT Secretary Michael P. Jackson remarked, "smart investors, and especially pension funds and other investors seeking greater stability, will not try to match double-digit gains of successful venture capital investors." They will have to be satisfied with more conservative returns.

In short, the financial crisis will cause investors to scale back expectations and experiment with financial innovation. The rising popularity of "availability payments" - which one of our readers characterized as "simply a long-term loan couched in fancy new terminology" - is one example how the financial services industry is responding with creative new approaches to the changing conditions of credit availability.

Lurking in the background as another blogger noted, is the fact that Wall Street and financial entities are mistrusted by a large fraction of the population and the political leaders. The recent financial crisis has magnified this anti-business feeling and may affect attitudes toward PPPs. However, the need for investment capital will presumably overcome the public uneasiness about letting private capital play a role, if adequate safeguards "to protect the public interest" are provided.

So my reaction to my colleague Andrew Bary is is to paraphrase Mark Twain: his report of the PPPs' demise is greatly exaggerated.

Would you dish out $500,000 a year if someone would then send you $33 million?, Miro Cernetig, The Vancouver Sun, "Ottawa's lack of vision may derail dream of fast-train service," May 19, 2009

So, it would also seem then, if all the stars were aligned to have Amtrak begin running a second daily train between Vancouver and Seattle, that officials would do what they could to make it happen -- that bureaucratic hiccups could be managed, addressed and not hold things up. But as in life, in governance and regulation oftentimes the simple becomes unnecessarily complex.

Click below to read the extended post.

That cost, as reported in The Vancouver Sun today is "about $1,500 a day, or a little over $500,000 a year." As Miro Cernetig points out, that doesn't seem like very much when estimates show that "a second train will bring another 35,000 visitors to the city annually, creating $16-million to $33-million in spending." Jon Ferry of The Province newspaper made similar arguments. And just this week, the Honorable Ujjal Dosanjh, Member of Parliament for Vancouver South, voiced his views in a letter to Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan and Minister of International Trade Stockwell Day.

As I reported two weeks ago, Cascadia Center is part of a coalition that has been urging action to accelerate a second Amtrak Cascades service to Vancouver. The 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver is certainly the most imminent reason to do this, but more broadly (and long term) is the idea of building a true high-speed rail corridor in the Northwest. (For it's part, Cascadia is focusing on that broader issue next week during Cascadia Rail Week, May 27-29 in Portland and Seattle.)

It remains to be seen whether Ottawa will take steps to accelerate the second train. But if you live between Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia, it's beginning to get difficult to turn around without reading, hearing or seeing someone talk in favor of the idea. And you're probably also wondering if, with all the favorable facts aligned, Ottawa would really throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Let's hope not.

Population in the four counties of Central Puget Sound will have grown from the 2008 total of 3.6 million by another 1.4 million in 2040. Jobs will increase by 1.1 million, and - based on the region's collective proclivities to date - total vehicle miles travelled (VMT) by more than 40 percent. Barring some big paradigm shift, the percentage of daily "passenger" work trips (freight vehicles not included) which occur on transit will grow from 8 percent of the current (2006) total to only 9 percent in 2040. For far more numerous non-work passenger trips, the transit market share stays at a scant 2 percent between 2006 and 2040, according to recent modeling. The vast majority of daily passenger trips occur in cars now and then. For work it's more than four of five, for non-work, about nine of ten. (The rest are split between transit, walking and biking.) On the upside, there's a lot more ride-sharing for non-work trips; plus, per-capita VMT will continue to stay flat; and we can shave a bit off the expected growth in total VMT by meeting (elusive) regional growth strategy targets.

These are some of the conclusions in a March 2009 background paper that's part of the Puget Sound Regional Council's "Transportation 2040" planning effort. Future projections may change slightly under new computer modeling in a draft environmental impact statement due out at month's end. But you get the idea. The PSRC's 2040 picture begs a huge question: what to do about it all. And, as we'll see in a moment, it turns out that, away from the big transportation headlines it made last session, the state legislature has some ideas of its own.

My own take: A comprehensive approach to managing peak-hour highway capacity in Central Puget Sound should be launched by bravely establishing - and soon - a seamless regional system of variably-priced, automated and ultimately, corridor-length tolling on highways and major state routes. This must be folded into a broader plan to develop stable long-term funding for the region's surface transportation network.

This approach can be limited to a facility, such as the State Route 520 bridge, or the planned inland deep-bored tunnel on SR 99 in downtown Seattle. But value pricing can also be applied more sweepingly, in all lanes of an urban region highway corridor; or in some lanes, which may be called High Occupancy and Toll (HOT) lanes. We need a network of value-priced highways, or lanes on highways, that connect with each other across the metro region. Otherwise, their value to users won't be anywhere near optimal.

HOT lanes are free to transit and ride-sharers and - this is key - also available to solo drivers for a variable toll based on current congestion levels in the HOT lanes(s). HOT lanes may be built anew or can be converted from pre-existing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or "carpool" lanes. Their guaranteed swift travel times can not only benefit motorists, but pair well with beefed-up suburb-to suburb express bus service, assuming traffic bottlenecks are fully erased on the bus routes - which may span several highways. On State Route 167, south of Seattle, one HOT lane is in operation on each side of the highway on a sizable stretch of the road, in a four-year pilot project. It's a good start on the concept.

A one-size fits all approach to value pricing is not necessarily indicated here, not yet. HOT lanes work best on heavily-used highways where solo drivers would actually want to pay for the express lane option. On less congested and incomplete highways that nonetheless require tolling revenues to be built out (think Washington's State Route 509, for instance), tolling all lanes using value pricing may make more sense than HOT lanes; who would pay for tolled express lanes they don't really need, when there's a free-flowing free option a lane or two over? If a facility over time becomes congested, then all-lanes-tolled can perhaps give way to a mix of HOT lanes and free lanes.

HOT lanes and other types of value-priced lanes are already in operation around the country and more are planned. Yet as always, it's California that's ahead of the curve. San Diego is already a leader in highway value pricing; and in the Bay Area, what's really on fire is a proposal for a full 800-mile seamless HOT lane highway system, now being advanced as AB 744 by Democratic legislator Alberto Torrico, the Assembly Majority Leader. It's likely to pass before long, if not this year. The HOT lanes approach suits the jammed highways of the nine-county region, population 7.3 million. Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, a Democrat, is enthused about the prospects for improved mobility - including express bus service.

For Pugetopolis, the "pay to play" guaranteed relief of HOT lanes on congested highways can help us recalibrate when and how often we drive alone. You say you're a peak hour solo driver and you want to arrive at your destination by a time certain? Fine, but it'll cost you. You want to avoid the higher rates of HOT lanes? Also fine, but you may have to travel off-peak, carpool, take transit or tele-commute. Or take the non-tolled general-use lanes next to the HOT lanes, which may experience significant congestion. Maybe you can afford to be late. Or maybe you can't, which is why, surveys have repeatedly shown, motorists of all income levels are glad to have HOT lanes at their disposal.

It's about transportation finance as well as busting congestion. Any attempt at beginning to fully modernize our poorly designed, stunted highway system will require the money raised under some sort of comprehensive regional tolling strategy, plus other funding sources including a local option motor vehicle excise tax and public-private partnerships.

The public conversation on tolling in Puget Sound isn't down to the real nitty-gritty yet, but it is moving forward. Recent, attention-grabbing transportation decisions in Olympia included approval of a deep-bored, likely-to-be-tolled inland bypass tunnel to replace the tottering blight of the Alaskan Way Viaduct on State Route 99 in Seattle, and early tolling on the State Route 520 bridge to help fund its crucial replacement for safety reasons.

On the old 520 bridge, from 2010 until the new bridge's construction, both lanes in each direction will be tolled; rates may or may not vary between single-occupant and multiple-occupant vehicles, but will vary by time of day, which gets at the idea of value pricing. As of now, it'll be the same on the new bridge, but that structure will also have a third lane in each direction to provide free passage for transit and ride-sharers. Perhaps one day those third lanes on each side will carry solo motorists too, for a premium, a la HOT lanes. And after a legislatively-mandated study is done next year, the newly-OKd SR 99 tunnel is likely to be automatically tolled when constructed, as Governor Chris Gregoire has stated. It will be two lanes in each direction, with rates that would probably vary by at least time of day. As with the SR 520 bridge, ride-sharers may be able to get a discount, but that's yet to be decided.

These are some of the moving parts, but what about the whole? A clearer picture begins to emerge in the state legislature's 94-page transportation budget bill, recently signed into law by Gov. Gregoire.

In that bill, legislators quietly took steps which could compel game-changing shifts - forcing the costs of peak-hour solo driving to top of mind, while establishing new revenue streams to help complete crucial missing pieces of the highway system. With proper legislative guidance, this could also help fund more and faster express bus routes.

For starters, Engrossed Senate Substitute Bill 5352 - orders up for completion by September 30, 2010 "a comprehensive tolling study of the state route 167 corridor to determine the feasibility of administering tolls" including "the potential for value pricing to generate revenues for needed transportation facilities within the corridor." A long-envisioned but largely unfunded extension of SR 167 to I-5 and the Port of Tacoma (map here) would yield big benefits. The route's build-out would allow moving freight faster and more safely, relieving regional congestion, and upgrading surface water quality and stream habitat feeding Commencement Bay. It doesn't come cheap. WSDOT pegs the cost at $2 billion and notes that only $160 million in funding has been secured so far, mostly from the 2003 and 2005 state gas tax hikes.

It's not clear yet whether more HOT lanes or conversion to an all-lanes tolled highway would be recommended for an SR 167 build-out. The former is an easier sell, but the latter would raise more money.

There's more in ESSB 535 that could help establish a network of value-priced highways in Central Puget Sound. SR 167 and I-405 form a north-south regional super-corridor connecting three counties through the heart of some of the region's most intense development.

Realizing the effects of continuing population and jobs growth on the I-405 corridor, lawmakers in ESSB 5352 direct WSDOT by January 2010 to prepare for them and the governor "a traffic and revenue study" for the highway in King and Snohomish counties "that includes funding for improvements and high-occupancy toll lanes" and "a plan to operate up to two (HOT) lanes in each direction." The state should ensure that the I-405 effort is synchronized with any major new phase of SR 167 planning, because real regional connectivity doesn't hew to bureaucratic or cartographic divides.

ESSB 5352 also orders up by September 30, 2010 for the key Westside corridor of SR 509 - the highway portion of which runs north into SR 99, and southbound, stops abruptly at 188th Street west of SeaTac Airport - a "value pricing" tolling and revenue study. This, along with related projects, would improve safety, freight mobility, and airport access, and cut 1-5 travel times and congestion. An excellent 2008 summary of the SR 509 project's importance is here, from the "Envision Midway" stakeholders committee; The Kent Chamber of Commerce has also been forcefully advocating that funding solutions be developed at the state level for SR 509 and other major South End transportation initiatives. WSDOT reports that the tab for the long-sought 509 project is a daunting $1.1 to $1.3 billion, while available funds, mainly from the 2003 and 2005 state gas tax hikes, are a scant $86 million. An all-lanes tolled financing component might be preferable to a strictly-HOT lanes approach; additional funding tools would be essential.

The transportation budget bill also directs WSDOT to prepare a study for the governor and legislature by January, 2010 on how value-priced automated tolling will affect traffic flows on the new I-5 bridge across the Columbia River connecting Clark County, Washington with Portland, Oregon. Notably, the study must also examine the advisability of concurrently tolling the parallel I-205 bridge across the river several miles east of the I-5 crossing.

Though left unsettled in the last session, a similar question, wrapped around the current politics of tolling, looms in Puget Sound with respect to the 520 bridge's southern cousin, the I-90 bridge. It will carry Sound Transit's EastLink light rail in the current (center portion) vehicle express lanes, the function of which will be moved to the structure's outside lanes. Toll revenue needs to be maximized on the I-90 bridge (as well as in the SR 520 corridor) to help pay for the new 520 bridge. The two parallel highways and bridges operate as an inter-dependent cross-lake east-west corridor.

The 520 bridge financing challenge is evident in this WSDOT summary - included in an agency update sent out just last week. It identifies a $2.6 billion funding gap in the project, even with new legislation providing $1.2 billion from 520-bridge-only tolling revenue (and related bonding), and a very hopeful total project price cap set by the legislature of $4.6 billion. Informed sources say tolling the I-90 bridge could yield another $1.4 billion, though that still leaves a shortfall of $1.2 billion for the legislature to address through federal or local sources, or perhaps somehow, cost savings. The WSDOT update also shows that state gas tax revenues provide little more than a tenth of project costs.

There are ways to help skin this cat, with voter approval of taxes and a more extensive, corridor-based approach to tolling. State Senator Ed Murray (D-Seattle) with co-sponsors Sen. Fred Jarrett (D-Mercer Island) and Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle) in SB 5493 last session introduced the idea of a regional transportation corridor authority to develop a proposal for voters that could use "variable pricing" (a.k.a. "value pricing") tolling revenues, plus a local vehicle excise tax of eight-tenths of one percent and federal grants to fund a comprehensive congestion-busting, multi-modal plan for the I-90/SR 520 corridor. It stalled in committee but is likely to be re-introduced in a coming session. Generally speaking, corridor authorities with such powers would be a good idea not only for our major east-west corridors but our north-south ones, and perhaps for Spokane and the Clark County-Portland region.

What about I-5? At the very least, it needs bi-directional HOT lanes between downtown Seattle and Northgate to ease congestion and help pay for the almost $2 billion in crucial but unfunded pavement and interchange reconfiguration work on that stretch. A broader, Tacoma-to-Everett HOT lanes tolling framework on I-5 is probably need too, utilizing existing or planned HOV lanes wherever possible.

Over time, revenue can only accrue in sizable amounts from highway value pricing in Central Puget Sound if optimal travel times are assured, and that means tolling at least some lanes in each direction on long stretches of all major metro region highway corridors, rather than just tolling a small portion of a corridor such as a bridge or tunnel. The political appetite doesn't really exist yet in Puget Sound for full-on corridor length tolling, though the nine miles of SR 167 HOT lanes are an important step in that direction.

The ground is gradually shifting, though. The new corridor-specific studies in the state transportation budget bill don't come from out of the blue. They build on earlier findings. A 2006 WSDOT report titled "Congestion Relief Analysis," ordered by - ahem - the legislature, found total surface travel delay could increase by three to five times in Central Puget Sound, Vancouver, Washington, and Spokane by 2025, barring technological breakthroughs or major changes in the individual decision-making factors around driving. Large-scale roadway expansion could reduce delay but would be too costly and get overtaken by growth, while transit alone was insufficient to solve the problem, according to the report. It identified as an especially appropriate response regional "value pricing" including HOT lanes, plus an emphasis on combined roadway and transit improvements in key corridors.

How to sell highway user fees in the near- and mid-term? A 2007 report from WSDOT, the PSRC and King County on focus group reactions to tolling options found broader support for allowing motorists the choice between HOT lanes and free lanes, as opposed to the less immediately-salable approach of tolling all lanes in a heavily-trafficked corridor. Respondents also indicated that terms such as "flexible tolling" and "express tolling" sounded better to them than "congestion pricing," or "road "pricing."

Adding heft to the possibility of implementing "flexible tolling" on no less than the Big Daddy of congested Puget Sound and West Coast highways, I-5, is this "Moving Washington - Puget Sound: West Side Corridor" report "insert" from WSDOT issued last September, which somehow managed to escape broad notice. Discussing I-5, it boldly declares:

Converting existing HOV lanes to variably tolled express lanes under the Good To Go! system will ensure buses, vanpools and carpools a toll-free, reliable commute and offer other drivers the same when they need it most.

Of course, implementation of I-5 HOT lanes would depend on the leadership of the legislature and the governor. And effectiveness would depend on whether the express toll lane option seamlessly continues on to value-priced lanes of some sort when drivers merge with other highways from I-5.

That's the nub of the matter: it can't be a halfway kind of deal. You're either on the bus or you're off the bus, to quote the late, famed Oregonian, author, and 60s icon Ken Kesey - who with his Merry Pranksters once cavorted along the West Coast in a swirly-painted school bus named "Further."

The trick will be at least four-fold:

This tack will be especially important for the next 10 to 15 years; not only to help raise money, ease peak-hour congestion and provide better corridor-based transit choices, but also to signal more directly to motorists that their different decisions must carry out-of-pocket costs better aligned with their social costs, such as congestion and vehicle emissions.

However, highway value pricing through electronic tolling, as much as it needs to be made whole, isn't the be-all and end-all of a broadened user fee culture for drivers. Eventually, we'll have to give close consideration to charging drivers by the mile on all roadways, with discounts for off-peak use, ride-sharing, and lower weight (typically more fuel-efficient) vehicles.

Wait, some say. Just raise the gas tax.

Feh.

Look again at the WSDOT fact sheets (linked above) on the SR 167 extension, the new SR 520 bridge and the SR 509 build-out. You'll see that even if the gas tax proceeds currently secured for those projects were doubled or tripled (very unlikely), the total take would still be nowhere near what's needed for completion. The by-the-gallon gas tax will be part of the puzzle for a while longer but it's spread way too thin, and that trend will accelerate as more fuel-efficient vehicles continue to gain in popularity and surface transportation funding needs keep multiplying with growth. Such factors are partly why ESSB 5352 also directs the legislature's joint transportation committee to do a new study of future-focused funding options. In the meantime, the Gregoire administration is all over the heightened emphasis on tolling revenue to help fund lagging transportation infrastructure. Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond will be discussing the new fast-track studies ordered by the legislature, and their likely implications for policy-makers, in a presentation this week to the state transportation commission.

Knotty traffic exacts a huge toll on work, family and health. We're in line for Los Angeles level congestion unless we get moving. But given the region's usual pace of getting things done, building a comprehensive value-priced regional highway system - with corridor-based tolling supplanting mere facility tolling - is a tall order. Will our elected leaders be equal to the challenge, which includes making the case to the public, suffering criticism and taking political risks? (Maybe so; the deep-bored tunnel decision, though a narrower issue, showed real moxie.) The answer will help determine whether or not Central Puget Sound is really ready to compete in the 21st Century global economy.

SEATTLE-Most days it’s the marine life that causes the most stir at the Seattle Aquarium. But on this sunny afternoon, an attraction of a different sort was the center of attention. As cars and trucks drove by outside the aquarium on the earthquake-prone Alaskan Way Viaduct, inside the fate of the aging structure was being sealed. Surrounded by supporters, Washington’s Governor Christine Gregoire signed into law the bill that commits the State of Washington to tearing down the viaduct and replacing it with a deep-bored tunnel.

“This wasn’t an easy process,” said Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as he welcomed a crowd of several hundred to the bill signing ceremony, “but it is done, it is done, it is done!” Truer words have rarely been spoken.

Click below to read the extended post.

But after today, at least when it comes to the viaduct, it seems that Seattle has come full circle. Governor Gregoire said Washington and Seattle were “putting years of discussion behind us” so that the work could begin. All the disagreement, and even the stalemate following a March 2007 vote where Seattle voters said they didn’t like either of two replacement options then on the table, seemed to be water under the proverbial bridge. “We are better by far together than we are when working separately,” said State Representative Judy Clibborn, seeming to capture the mood perfectly.

As Governor Gregoire signed her name to Senate Bill 5768, the crowd of several hundred applauded--seeming to let out a collective sigh of relief that a good decision reached through consensus had finally been made. A consensus that Governor Gregoire said took “planning, commitment, stamina and guts.”