The US Department of Transportation is getting ready to release a commission based study of the future of highway funding arguing for a high tech tolling solution. The folks at the Discovery Institute, whom I've been railing at lately for their support of a financially questionable bore tunnel proposal for downtown Seattle, have done a great job at predicting the likely recommendations of this Commission.
They are arguing for a concept called VMT, vehicle miles travelled, presumably technologically similar to the GPS based system now before the state of Oregon. Gas taxes will be gradually phased out, though, personally, those words are as questionable as the financing for the Seattle Tunnel.
I disagree with this proposal on the basis of what seems to be politically feasible for local voters, not to mention saleable to the Washington State driver.
I have a counter-proposal for advancing Highway funding based on what is already working in this State - HOT lanes, limiting tolling to converted HOV lanes with pricing based on congestion levels.
There are two ideas regarding HOV funding source options that make sense as High Occupancy Tolling develop. First, insure that the funds are dedicated to the corridor in which they are generated. This insures market type responses to traffic problem areas, sure poorer areas wouldn't get this type of funding, but this can be adjusted for. The positive effect of this is to insure that reasonably well off areas get exactly the amount of service they are able to afford, and choose, to pay for in their aggregated daily market choices.
Second is the idea of expanding our HOV/HOT system to two lanes, leaving only a single free lane available. Sure, it would be possible to go to a completely tolled based system from this transitional step, but then again, maybe we don't need to.
For one, I don't think the Gas Tax is broken as a funding mechanism. Sure, it does have the drawback of forecasted drops due hybrids and electric vehicles. That factor is not a bad thing, a built in appropriate level of incentive for the purchase of the vehicles without changing anything. Sure, additional funding is needed and congestion pricing is the way to be realistic about establishing funding priorities.
A two lane HOV/HOT system approach has another big benefit, but a tougher one to realize - one that does merit federal leadership. The concept of 'Intelligent Vehicle Systems', IVS, which use computing technology to make our roads much safer and a bit more fuel efficient could be rolled out by exactly this same two lane HOV approach. That second lane, when its available, could be restricted to vehicles that are so equipped - buses, trucks and the tech early adopters to start off with.
The rollout path for this tech also makes sense - for one, whom better than a professional driver to do the beta testing on what is a complex system?
Here locally there is an area that would make a great prototype rollout of this tech - the Seattle Bus Tunnel. As you will recall the tunnel is designed for both buses and light rail vehicles on the same corridor. The current plan is to remove buses as soon as possible as there are safety problems with their joint operation. The issue is that the braking speed of a bus is much greater than that of a steel wheeled train. An IVS system can completely remove that safety factor.
And, FWIW, allowing buses access to both HOT lanes and light rail corridors would be a very, very good thing. An IVS rollout on a two lane congestion priced HOT lane system would make that work and give everyone lots of options, not less.
Which is, presumably, what the DC folks are after - if recent experience is any guide.
