The President’s plan would force the production of smaller, hybrid, and advanced fuel saving technologies into the US auto marketplace.

He told the Associated Press:

“I want to be clear from the beginning of this administration that we have made our choice: America will not be held hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes and a warming planet,” Obama said. 

The change in policy could also make things bit more expensive in the short term for consumers. New technologies generally cost more. These fuel efficient vehicles could cost thousands more. However  President Obama believes this is more of a long term fix.

“It falls on us to choose whether to risk the peril that comes with our current course or to seize the promise of energy independence,” Obama said. “And for the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and the commitment to change.”

If new emission standards get passed by individual states, it would require auto makers to boost fuel standards by 40 percent and by 2020, cars will at the very least get 35MPG.

The President also said that the US dependence on foreign oil “bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation and funds both sides of our struggle against terrorism. It puts the American people at the mercy of shifting gas prices, stifles innovation and sets back our ability to compete.”

Lofty goals and high demands made by the new president. But ultimately, it comes to changing American habits. Luckily for Seattle drivers, we’re ahead of the nation when it comes to this.

See the full AP article in the Seattle Times.

The committee is the official group that has been brought together by Washington State legislatures back in March earlier this year to study and make recommendations back to lawmakers. Heads of the committee include the major movers and shakers of the transportation circle: Bob Drewel of the Puget Sound Regional Council; Paula Hammond, Washington State Secretary of Transportation; and Dick Ford of the Washington State Transportation Commission.

Any commuter that has to cross 520 during the rush hour knows that traffic routinely turns into a crawl during that time. Adding a toll on top of that commute, on the surface, would seemingly add fuel to the fire for frustrated drivers. Unfortunately, the facts are clear that 520 is a rapidly deteriorating and in danger of being a public safety risk.

Going back in time to the aftermath investigations of the Nisqually earthquake in 2001, safety engineers found cracks in the side of the 520 bridge that posed a serious risk and dilemma. Repairing the bridge would could close to $1 billion, while a estimates for a replacement are upwards of $3 billion. Even with repairs however, the bridge was built in 1963 with inherent flaws such as hollow sectioned towers and support cables that would still be highly vulnerable to failure.

To mitigate against natural disasters, the decision was made to build an entirely new 520 bridge, scheduled to open in 2014. Two new HOV lanes will be added in each direction, while a walking and biking corridor will also be added, much like on I-90. Official estimates for the project range between $3.7 and $3.9 billion, though if history is any indicator, estimates are generally on the low side of actual cost. While $2 billion has already been set aside from sources like the state risk pool, gas tax, sales tax and federal funding, the remaining portion will be funded by tolls.

What remains is the issue of how tolls will be implemented. So far, the committee has evaluated a number of scenarios that include:

• Toll 520 in 2010, when construction begins
• Toll 520 in 2016, after project is completed
• Toll 520 in 2010, then I-90 in 2016
• Toll both 520 and I-90 in 2016, after project is completed
• Toll both 520 and I-90 in 2010

A few other options have been recently added to the table, which include varying toll rates between years and areas, though the scenarios above would seem to have the most support. For drivers thinking to simply head to I-90, the State legislature is planning on enacting tolls there as well to ensure that exact scenario doesn’t happen. Currently, toll options being discussed range as low as $2.00 and as high as $10.00.

Variable tolling, similar to Highway 167’s single-occupancy HOV tolls, is also a major topic. The proposal is that during peak hours, tolls will be set at full price, while decreasing at off-peak hours as traffic subsides. The idea is that commuters will change their commuting cycle to avoid peak hours, due to both traffic and higher toll fees.

Tolling is to be done electronically, through electric transponder cards. Local commuters would pre-pay for toll cards, which would be deducted by the system as drivers pass through. As for motorists without a transponder, the current proposal is to have cameras installed to take license plate photos and have invoices delivered to the owner of the vehicle. Though this technology has been implemented on the Tacoma narrows bridge and in varying locales throughout the US, privacy advocates will surely want their say.

At the open house, items such as what parts of 520 to toll, how tolls funds should be disbursed and toll pricing will likely be the hot topics. With the economic crunch, businesses on both sides of the bridge, as well as commuters, will undoubtedly push for lower tolls, as well as limits on tolls remaining in place. That may be where the common ground ends however, as businesses on the I-90 and I-405 corridor will likely push against keeping tolls on their section of the road, while those on 520 will want make tolls universal, in order to prevent motorists from toll hopping away from their businesses. In addition, supporters of mass transit will want to have their say in how toll funds will be used and how to expand service.

For those who cannot make the open house, the 520 committee is offering an online survey through November 30th. To obtain more information, please go to the comittee’s website at www.build520.org.

Proposition 1: YES

Even though we’re an auto blog, we think that a vote in favor of light rail is not a vote against cars, but a vote to build much needed infrastructure.

In an ideal world, we would have enough money to pay for a new 520 bridge, widen I-5 and I-405, improve HOV implementation and get more buses on the road. Unfortunately, the fact is that we are short on money. Very short. The reason we support Proposition 1, as expensive as it might be, is because it’s the best chance we have of upgrading our infrastructure in the next 10 years.

I (Grant) drive my hybrid the majority of the time, but even my hybrid is still using gas. The fact is that gas is limited, has unstable prices and sends money overseas. While electrics are on their way, GM’s Chevy Volt is still 4 years away and has a price tag of $40,000 per vehicle. Per person, it’s far more cost and energy efficient to pay for an efficient regional light rail transit than equip families with Chevy Volts. Yes, there will be a loss of independence – which we understand quite well - but there’s a time when you just have to bite the bullet.

Nobody loves a 500 hp Viper that can tear across 520 in under 20 seconds as much as we do, but we also love the environment and our city even more. That’s why we’re supporting Prop 1.

Initiative 985: NO

While Tim Eyman might be onto something by extending the hours for the HOV lane, there’s been too many other additions tied into the initiative that make it far more than a vote about carpool lanes and freeing up traffic.

For one, the bill prevents the ability for toll revenues to be used for park and rides, buses and more importantly – light rail. Second, funds for implementing the new changes come from existing revenue streams, which mean other programs will have their budgets dipped into.

So, we agree with some aspects of I-985, such as removing art requirement budgets from transportation projects, opening HOV lanes during non-rush hours and appreciate the idea of not using bridge tolls for non-transportation projects. That said, the bill goes too far in many regards and as such, is more dangerous to implement than not.

Remember, whether you agree with us or not, please go out and vote this November 4th!

Coming this voting season, Eyman is taking on the issue of highway traffic. He is doing so by introducing Measure I-985, a new initiative that will enable single drivers to use HOV and carpool lanes during non-rush hours.  The new measure proposes that car pool lanes will be only restricted to HOV vehicles from 6am-9am and 3pm-6pm on weekdays. Outside of these hours, car pool lanes will be open to all drivers.

According to a quote from Eyman in an interview with the Seattle PI, he says that it doesn’t make sense to sit in traffic, “[m]iddle of the day, bumper to bumper traffic, [with] that empty lane sitting right next to you”. By passing this measure, Eyman believes that it will be a, “quick kick to the shins” for Washington lawmakers, who have been slow to implement suggestions from a 2007 state audit of traffic congestion.

In addition to opening up car pool lanes during non-rush hours, I-985 also requires Seattle, as well as the state, to assign higher priority to traffic accidents as well as synchronizing traffic lights. Eyman’s initiative also slips in a clause that would essentially prevent Washington lawmakers from collecting tolls on the 520 floating point bridge as well as I-90.

In discussions earlier this year, city and state planners had proposed the idea of a toll for 520 and I-90, in efforts to generate funds to pay for the retrofitting or rebuilding of the 520 bridge. Planners envisioned a one-way toll of $3 to $5 for single occupancy vehicles, which has been understandably unpopular with commuters. With a nasty budget shortfall for 2009 and reluctance to raise taxes, the funding for 520 will become an increasing hot topic, especially if Eyman’s new measure gains traction.

Not surprisingly, opposition has already formed to oppose measure I-985. Opponents say that Eyman’s new measure takes funding away from rural Eastern Washington road budgets and pools it into urban centers in Western Washington. Lawmakers have also chimed in about the need to keep toll options on the table.

Personally, living on the Eastside and being a regular commuter on 520 during rush hour, I see a valid point with the car pool point argument — at least as it pertains to 520 (I don’t know the situation with I-5). That said, there is still a good deal of rush hour traffic from 6pm to even 7pm, so it would make sense to extend the exclusion hours on Eyman’s initiative.

That said, it’s hard to support Eyman’s initiative due to the fact that he is disallowing the idea of tolls on 520. Nobody is a fan of tolls, especially at Seattle Auto, but given the upcoming budget shortfall and lower anticipated tax revenues, it’s unreasonable at this point to take the toll option off the table. Olympia will inevitably be cutting programs next year, regardless of who is elected, so thinking that we will have enough coffers to cover the billion dollar rebuilding of 520 is far-fetched.

The only thing that we can be sure of however, if history is any good predictor of the future, is that this isn’t the last we’ll see of Tim Eyman.