I-90 tolling plan draws local concerns

February 26, 2013

By Lillian O'Rorke

The city of Issaquah may not have an official stance on Interstate 90 tolling yet, but some of its citizens do.

In a letter to the state’s Department of Transportation, Issaquah’s mayor and City Council wrote that the city would not say whether or not Interstate 90 should be tolled until after the DOT is done with an environmental assessment. However, the city does have ideas about what should happen if tolls go in.

By Greg Farrar Picket signs posted on the eastbound off-ramp shoulder of Interstate 90 at Front Street North proclaim an opposition group’s stand against tolls on the federal highway to pay for replacement of the state Route 520 Evergreen Point floating bridge across Lake Washington.

By Greg Farrar
Picket signs posted on the eastbound off-ramp shoulder of Interstate 90 at Front Street North proclaim an opposition group’s stand against tolls on the federal highway to pay for replacement of the state Route 520 Evergreen Point floating bridge across Lake Washington.

“There should be equity for all users of the I-90 corridor,” the letter read. “There should not be populations that are exempted from tolling, thereby receiving public benefit at no cost to them.”

“The city is in opposition to the tolling of off-ramps and on-ramps in the city of Issaquah, specifically exit 13, exit 15, exit 17 and exit 18. It would be inequitable to toll these ramps unless every ingress or egress from an interstate was tolled across the state.”

Other positions outlined in the letter include using part of the money collected from I-90 tolls to improve the interstate’s corridor and using a portion of the revenues for mass transit. The city also requested that the next time DOT holds public scope meetings, Issaquah should be included as a venue.

Before the letter was sent, the Issaquah City Council held a public hearing Feb. 19 on the matter. Included in the crowd of about a dozen people was DOT representative Paul Arnold, who came to observe. All five people who got up to testify spoke out against the toll.

Among those was Connie Marsh, who owns a vintage clothing store on Gilman Boulevard. She explained that many of her customers drive from Seattle, and proving to them that good vintage pieces could be found on the Eastside didn’t happen overnight.

“You add tolls and you increase the barrier that we have spent a long time trying to eradicate,” Marsh said. “Unless you make you bus service every 15 minutes with great signage everywhere, then you are just going to separate the east and west side again.”

Michael Beard, an Issaquah property owner, said he was disappointed when he read the city’s letter.

“It reads to me like condoning this toll. I ask you to represent us. I haven’t heard anyone represent us,” he said.

Beard estimated the tolls would cost him and his wife $2,000 to $4,000 per year and said while his family could absorb that cost, the average worker could not.

“I challenge you to consider who you represent and what these costs mean to us,” he said.

Councilman Tola Marts said that the letter is useful because it lets the DOT know where Issaquah’s priorities are. He added, though, that he is personally opposed to the tolls.

“My biggest problem with this is that it is, yet again, another regressive tax,” Marts said. “Putting more taxation on the backs of our workers and businesses is a bad move.”

He ended by explaining that he supports the letter but urges individuals to let their opinions be known.

Councilwoman Eileen Barber agreed that it was important to let the state know about Issaquah’s concerns, especially the dangerous impacts, she said, that tolling on- and off-ramps would have on the community.

At this point, the city will not take a formal position, but as the discussion goes forward, perhaps the city will take a position on behalf of the community, Councilman Joshua Schaer said.

The council voted unanimously to approve the letter and send it to the DOT. The complete letter can be found online at www.issaquahwa.gov/documentcenter/view/1692.

 

Bookmark and Share
Other Stories of Interest: , , ,

Comments

One Response to “I-90 tolling plan draws local concerns”

  1. BK Baker on February 28th, 2013 3:47 pm

    Well, what a big surprise that tolling on 520 would increase traffic on I90. Weren’t the 520 tolls supposed to pay for the bridge and cure all fiscal ills? Now only ‘certain’ I90 communities are supposed to defray the cost and pay to ease the congestion the state created by making 520 a toll bridge?

    The Federal Govt needs to approve tolling of Federal Highways – and with the current Adminstration that is likely to win easy approval, as they never met a tax they didn’t like.

    This is ultimately about discouraging private transport in favor of public transport which is still largely inefficient, inconvenient, not to mention unsafe at certain times of day, and is in part to eventually ‘nudge’ people from the suburbs back into the cities. We pay some of the highest gasoline taxes in the nation, and transportation improvements are supposed to be funded from these taxes. Yet our state agencies continue to ignore the needs of commuters, instead seeking to punish them and engage in social engineering which forces people into giving up their cars and into riding bikes, taking busses, and walking to work -instead of using the funds collected to ease congestion and repair and maintain roads and bridges. We are not Europe, this country and the majority of our cities were built around the concept of the mobility provided by the automobile – we don’t have the London Tube, or the Paris Metro… and trying to retrofit them into our cities now is cost prohibitive, as much as the social engineers would like to make it so.

    This State seems to be rushing headlong into duplicate the collectivist Agenda 21 and ‘tax and spend’ insanity of California, which has put the State and many of the cites within it into financial ruin, destroyed property values, demolished jobs, and is forcing residents and businesses to flee the state as fast as they can short sell their homes, move their businesses, and as their feet can carry them.

Got something to say?

Before you comment, please note:

  • These comments are moderated.
  • Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
  • Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
  • This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.