Is a toll of $6 each way high-enough to cut back traffic?

$6 tolls proposed, each way, for new 520 Bridge.

I think such a toll will substantially cut the number of users, cutting revenue and making the bridge financing more tenuous.

There could be $6 tolls each way on a new Evergreen Point Bridge within 11 years if regional voters approve a highway-improvement package that rebuilds the aging span, according to a new financing plan for the replacement. The figure, announced Tuesday, was developed by the Regional Transportation Investment District, a three-county entity that is considering the $14.5 billion road improvement package for the November ballot....The new plan estimates $6 tolls, about the same as expected by 2018 on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, except that Evergreen Point tolls would be charged each way. Narrows bridge tolls are expected to be one-way only.

It's a conundrum for bridge planners. They can't build the bridge without a high toll. Yet a high toll will, I believe, discourage traffic so much that even a high toll will not generate enough revenue to pay for it. It's a descending spiral. Then they raise the toll and traffic drops even more. Soon they have to go back to the State's General Fund to pay off the bonds.

UPDATE from The P-I:

Note: This story has been altered. The original version misstated that proposed tolls for the Evergreen Point Bridge could be $6 each way. It's actually $6 round trip.

My question still stands, though not as severely.

Comments

[five toed sloth]

The story you link to has been updated; it now says the $6 is round-trip, not each way.

[M1EK]

If a mere $6 toll would discourage a significant portion of traffic, then can't we say that a lot of the 'need' for the route was really just a 'want'?

[David]

By the standard of "need" it would seem that very few things could not be eliminated from our lives and from public expenditures in particular.

[M1EK]

That's a bit of reductio ad absurdium.

But if it'll make you happy, I'll rephrase:

For this nominal charge (comparable to transit fares in expensive cities) to reduce traffic demand by that much, said demand must be much more elastic than typically asserted, must it not? After all, we're told that driving is essentially inelastic in the short-term because fuel increases don't seem to be denting driving (much).

(I just spent 11 days in Honolulu - bus fares are $2 each way - and this is just for local bus service, remember, not anything nice like rail).

I'd obviously assert based on anectdotal evidence and a bit of studies that tolls, being a much more obvious and direct and immediate user fee than gas taxes, can and do have a much larger effect on demand. But I'm curious whether you'd now agree based on the bridge toll study.

[Jesse]

I think they should toll the viaduct and use the proceeds to pay for the reconstruction. It would help to reduce traffic during the reconstruction/repair as well...