Dave Ross supports tolling boats that cross the 520 bridge

BY Alyssa Kleven  on August 17, 2012 @ 1:08 pm (Updated: 3:27 pm - 8/17/12 )

520bridge_wsdot
The 520 bridge drawspan has opened four times Friday for marine traffic. Should we start tolling boats too? (Photo courtesy the Washington State Department of Transportation)

We toll cars crossing the 520 bridge, so maybe it's time for boats to pay a toll too.

In July, the Washington State Department of Transportation set new guidelines for marine traffic crossing Lake Washington.

The bridge would no longer be raised for boats to pass through during morning and evening rush hours. The new rules added an hour-and-a-half more than the previous rules and were designed to coincide with the bridge's heaviest trafficked times.

That hasn't seemed to slow marine traffic. On a sunny Friday, the bridge has opened four times; creating traffic headaches again, and again, and again.

It's no surprise that Dave Ross, a commuter of the SR-520 and I-90 bridges, has the solution.

"If we're getting charged a toll to cross it, [boats] should get charged a toll to cross it."

Much like the statistics that show traffic has decreased on the 520 bridge, it may lessen marine traffic and in turn, lessen bridge openings for midday drivers.

That's not what Dave has in mind.

"The toll [boaters] pay should be enough to refund the tolls for the people who are on the bridge."

Alyssa Kleven, MyNorthwest.com Editor
Alyssa Kleven is an editor and content producer at MyNorthwest.com. She enjoys doting over her adorable dachshund Winnie - named for Arcade Fire front-man Win Butler.
More Local News
Top Stories

  • Seeking Answers
    Investigators, engineers, and lawmakers scramble to fix I-5 after bridge collapses

  • Survivors' Stories
    It was "like a roller coaster where you're not attached to the tracks"

  • Bridge Distress
    Washington has an unfortunate history of bridge disasters
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (23)


  • Add A Comment

  • andy123 wrote...
    Boat tolls
    August 17, 2012 2:57 pm
    Great idea Dave, assuming it's yours. I think the locks should be tolled also. Airlines already pay landing fees at SeaTac. I wonder if Amtrak pays any fees for stopping every place it goes. And people found guilty of causing an accident that backs up traffic should pay a Traffic Congestion fine. And KIRO should pay a fine every time it plays that stupid "Cars for kids" commercial.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Roark wrote...
    I totally disagree with you!
    August 17, 2012 3:22 pm
    Except for the cars for kids commercial. I'm 10% with you on that one. I would add the Heritage for the Blind ad as well. Not because I don't want the blind to get help, I just hate the song!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Roark wrote...
    where's the edit button!
    August 17, 2012 3:24 pm
    100% that is...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • awbitf wrote...
    Your argument is purely about convenience
    August 17, 2012 2:57 pm
    but truthfully, you have some merit. Boats that need to have the bridge opened are also using the bridge and should contribute to its replacement.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Roark wrote...
    But be consistent Dave...
    August 17, 2012 3:20 pm
    If you believe in tolling boats, shouldn't we also license bicycles for using the roads? They complain a lot with their naked bike rids because cars ignore them on the roads, yet they pay no fees to use the roads. Since it's the cars that are imposing roads on water, I don't see why boats should owe the DOT anything. Don't boats also have to wait for the stupid bridge to open?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Citizen of Krazy Town wrote...
    So THAT'S how the bridge opens
    August 17, 2012 3:23 pm
    Always wondered about that...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gb1118 wrote...
    I think...
    August 17, 2012 3:38 pm
    We should toll Dave Ross for spewing his crap on the radio everyday.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cyberdude wrote...
    Bicyclists pay too
    August 17, 2012 3:45 pm
    @Roark, Everytime a bicyclist buys a tire, he/she pays taxes, I believe its Federal Excise Tax so yes, bicyclists do pay.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    cyberdude
    August 17, 2012 4:21 pm
    Your argument then implies cars shouldn't be charged a toll, nor should they be charged an annual liscence since their tires are taxed, plus cars pay tax at the pump which was supposed to go to pay for road maintence as well. Good luck in getting the dems to waive those taxes.

    But as to Dave's suggestion...it seems reasonable. Give all boaters a 60 day notice before the toll goes into effect so they can relocated, after that they are mooored with the expectation of that bridge opening as the cost of keeping one's boat in the southern half of lake WA.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    @ 1118 - Dave already pays a heavy toll
    August 18, 2012 4:49 am
    having to work with Luke Burbank.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hectic wrote...
    What would the toll be for?
    August 17, 2012 4:27 pm
    Boats are not traveling on 520, so they shouldn't have to pay for it, and a fee/toll just for flipping a switch to open the bridge hardly seems justified. But I would think they could limit the openings to once or twice a day. And for the record, these are normally not pleasure boats opening 520, they are usually commercial boats; barges, cranes etc.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick1 wrote...
    uh really..
    August 17, 2012 8:27 pm
    a freaking toll for the extra gazillion it takes to have an articulating bridge that raises for the rich.....if you tolling me you better be tolling them
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    Try reading the US Constitution sometime
    August 17, 2012 4:37 pm
    You actually might find your answer as to why the State can't toll boaters.. Heck Dave and Luke.. you might find a lot of answers about America there... give it read.. go ahead.. amuse us..
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    Think the DOT is smart enough at one end of the bridge to build it high enough so "all boats" can go under it? . . . .
    August 17, 2012 4:45 pm
    we shall see. Look at the money they (we) would save with no moving parts.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hectic wrote...
    Cost too much
    August 18, 2012 6:05 am
    In order to build a bridge high enough, they's have to raise the shore side too, and that's not really feasible. Unless the just put a giant roller coast hump in the middle of the lake, but then again, not really feasible.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Chuckster wrote...
    Dave supports a toll?
    August 17, 2012 6:51 pm
    No way!!!!! Next your going to tell me Dave supports higher taxes, rampant abortion, goverment money for playhouses but not stadiums and repealing the second amendment.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • 0623 wrote...
    proposed boat tolls
    August 17, 2012 7:57 pm
    I think it would take an act of Congress (if not a constitutional amendment. As I recall when the bridge was built, there was something about international law of the sea and vessels being guaranteed right-of-way.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }