4 ms·

It's not a wealth transfer, it's just internalizing some externalities. The decisions of millions of people to live far away from where they work has created th

by imgabe 11y ago

It's not a wealth transfer, it's just internalizing some externalities. The decisions of millions of people to live far away from where they work has created this situation where they all have to spend hours sitting in traffic. Maybe individually it's worthwhile to each person, but collectively it's wasting billions of hours and countless gallons of gas. The tolls are merely trying to align the financial incentives with reality. In other words, move so you don't have to sit in traffic or pay the toll.

refurb 11y ago
I think the problem is that such tolls are hitting the lower income class hard. Unless you make a lot of money, you can't live in a city center where you work. You have no choice but to live in the 'burbs where a car is your only option. Think about it this way: raise the tolls to something really high, say $50/day. The very rich won't stop driving, they don't care. So now we convert all of our roads from public to only for the very wealthy.
- imgabe 11y ago
  People say nobody can afford to live in a city, and yet "inner city" is synonymous with poverty. There are plenty of places to live in most cities that are within the reach of middle class folks, but they might entail living next to some people with a different skin color, and that frightens people. Other alleged problems like crime, bad schools, etc would clear up easily if some people who cared about making a community moved in and took some responsibility, but nobody seems to want to do that.
  - refurb 11y ago
    There are plenty of places to live in most cities that are within the reach of middle class folks, but they might entail living next to some people with a different skin color, and that frightens people. Or living in a neighborhood with gun violence and rampant drug abuse. I don't blame them for not wanting to live there.
    - imgabe 11y ago
      Yes, that is an impression that is held by people who don't live in such places. In reality, it's not the wild west with daily gunfights in the streets and junkies passed out on the sidewalk. Like the vast majority of human beings, even poor people mostly just want to go about their business and not be hassled.
      - pyre 11y ago
        Changing your location can also change your (car) insurance rates. Mine doubled just to to changing my address to where I currently live (from a more gentrified area).
  - AJ007 11y ago
    In second and third tier cities, yes. Take a look at Chicago, Cabrini Green was demo'd a luxury housing put in its placed. You can look at the gentrification of New York City, different process but similar outcome. California, despite the wild things going on in downtown SF, absolutely things have flipped. The inner city of first tier cities = huge $$$
- simval 11y ago
  Hi, author here. I understand your point, but here is why it doesn't convince me. First of all, the really poor in many cases cannot even afford cars. They already take transit, walk or bike to work, or sometimes just don't have work because there aren't enough jobs around where they live. But since streets and roads are often partly funded through general funds, it means that these people who cannot afford to drive end up paying taxes to subsidize those who can. I don't think it makes sense. Also, people who would opt out of driving to save on money with tolls and congestion charges would also probably save a lot of money. As you said, the rich may not care, but then the rich will pay. That money they pay will allow roads to be funded without using general funds or will serve to subsidize transit. Some may call it a "wealth transfer", but I would call it ending an unfair wealth transfer that is currently in effect in most places in North America. Second, it's not as if roads would be shut off, in general only drivers would have to pay, as they use roads much more than other road users. Third, I consider the effects this would have on land use patterns. By subsidizing road transport, what we do is create an incentive for people and companies to settle farther and farther away from the center of metropolitan areas. When it's an individual choice and they're willing to assume the consequences of that choice, OK, I'm perfectly fine with that. But why should everyone else subsidize their choice? Isn't that rewarding waste and punishing virtue? Those who make a responsible choice to live in places where they will not need to use much expensive public infrastructure end up paying taxes to subsidize people who make the choice to live in areas where essentially every trip they make will require extensive use of expensive public infrastructure? But what is worse is when companies decide to settle far away to benefit from the congestion-free, toll-free roads in the periphery of metro areas. By moving away from the center, which is often better served by transit and more walkable and bikable, these companies end up creating a situation where people who want to work there, or who want to purchase their goods and services, HAVE to buy a car to access them. When that process is repeated by most companies, you end up with a metropolitan area where people without cars lose access to 80-90% of jobs and services, this condemns many poor urban neighborhoods to despair and poverty from which they cannot escape, because they need cars to access economic opportunities to lift them out of poverty, but they don't have the money to own a car (which costs on average about 6 000$ a year), they would need a job to have the money to buy a car that they need to find a job. See the problem? So even if these policies I spoke about may have some negative impacts on some poor people who are barely able to afford cars as it is, I think in the long-run, they would shape cities to favor developments that increase access to jobs and services for the poor and reduce car-dependency. I don't know if I convince you but I hope at least you understand my reasoning.
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  The opposite is true in DC. There are no tolls between central DC and the affordable areas like EOTR DC and PG County, MD. The tolls are in the expensive suburbs in VA and Montgomery County, MD.
hugh4 11y ago
> It's not a wealth transfer, it's just internalizing some externalities I'm wary of that argument, it can be used to justify just about anything. It's all too easy to selectively internalise a politically unimportant group's externalities while letting others' remain external. Where are these millions of people supposed to move to, to be closer to work? Don't houses in DC start at around the seven-figure mark? People with children don't want to live in tiny apartments. How about we have a government which sees its job as helping people do what they want to do (ie live in big houses and get to their jobs which can't be relied upon to be within a one-mile radius) instead of one that tries to force people into its own vision of life?
- WildUtah 11y ago
  One policy innovation here is being tried in LA. With a $15 minimum wage you can drive away the jobs of the people who would be unable to pay their fare share for motorway space. Those jobs that can't pay $15 will simply relocate to small towns, the South, and rural areas far from LA. Those that can pay better will see workers paid more. Either way, the motorways clear up and motorists can afford to pay tolls that will cover externalities and eliminate gridlock. Every big city should be looking at a minimum wage at $15 or even $20. It makes life better for everyone.
- simval 11y ago
  Subsidizing big houses and overbuilding road networks while keeping them toll-free to allow people to live there while not losing access to jobs is actually the government forcing people into decision makers' own vision of life. That lifestyle was popular among the richest people, but it is extraordinarily expensive. As a result, you can only make it accessible to the middle-class by subsidies... but someone has to pay these subsidies. Not everyone can be a winner in the game of taxes and subsidies. So if you want to make that lifestyle more affordable, you are inherently saying that you are ready to make every other lifestyle LESS affordable by taxing them to provide the subsidies required to support your favored lifestyle. Even if you manage to get everyone into that lifestyle, you have moved a large part of the funding that goes into it from an optional price that people may or may not pay into a fixed price that everyone has to pay. In other words, just because someone chooses to opt out of that lifestyle doesn't free him from having to pay the cost associated to it. For example, let's look at plane tickets. Everyone wishes they could afford first class, but they can't. What would happen if governments decided to reduce the cost of first class tickets to make them more accessible? Well, a lot more people would opt for first class, and airlines would convert more and more of the plane to first class, which would only increase perpetually the amount of subsidies required to make first class more affordable. People who opt for economy class in the meanwhile wouldn't have access to these subsidies and would pay the full price of their tickets... AND pay the same taxes as people who buy first class tickets. So they pay taxes that reduce their purchasing power to subsidize first class ticket buyers, subsidies they can only access if they themselves opt for first class. Is this really a fair situation? That's basically what most of North America has been doing for 70 years. I'm not opposed to subsidies on principle, but I think subsidies need to fulfill social objectives that help society or make it more humane. How is subsidizing lifestyle choices that incur more costs, more waste and more pollution, to society helping to fulfill social objectives? If people want that lifestyle, fine, as long as they pay for it.

by imgabe 11y ago

refurb 11y ago

I think the problem is that such tolls are hitting the lower income class hard. Unless you make a lot of money, you can't live in a city center where you work. You have no choice but to live in the 'burbs where a car is your only option. Think about it this way: raise the tolls to something really high, say $50/day. The very rich won't stop driving, they don't care. So now we convert all of our roads from public to only for the very wealthy.

imgabe 11y ago
People say nobody can afford to live in a city, and yet "inner city" is synonymous with poverty. There are plenty of places to live in most cities that are within the reach of middle class folks, but they might entail living next to some people with a different skin color, and that frightens people. Other alleged problems like crime, bad schools, etc would clear up easily if some people who cared about making a community moved in and took some responsibility, but nobody seems to want to do that.
- refurb 11y ago
  There are plenty of places to live in most cities that are within the reach of middle class folks, but they might entail living next to some people with a different skin color, and that frightens people. Or living in a neighborhood with gun violence and rampant drug abuse. I don't blame them for not wanting to live there.
  - imgabe 11y ago
    Yes, that is an impression that is held by people who don't live in such places. In reality, it's not the wild west with daily gunfights in the streets and junkies passed out on the sidewalk. Like the vast majority of human beings, even poor people mostly just want to go about their business and not be hassled.
    - pyre 11y ago
      Changing your location can also change your (car) insurance rates. Mine doubled just to to changing my address to where I currently live (from a more gentrified area).
- AJ007 11y ago
  In second and third tier cities, yes. Take a look at Chicago, Cabrini Green was demo'd a luxury housing put in its placed. You can look at the gentrification of New York City, different process but similar outcome. California, despite the wild things going on in downtown SF, absolutely things have flipped. The inner city of first tier cities = huge $$$
simval 11y ago
Hi, author here. I understand your point, but here is why it doesn't convince me. First of all, the really poor in many cases cannot even afford cars. They already take transit, walk or bike to work, or sometimes just don't have work because there aren't enough jobs around where they live. But since streets and roads are often partly funded through general funds, it means that these people who cannot afford to drive end up paying taxes to subsidize those who can. I don't think it makes sense. Also, people who would opt out of driving to save on money with tolls and congestion charges would also probably save a lot of money. As you said, the rich may not care, but then the rich will pay. That money they pay will allow roads to be funded without using general funds or will serve to subsidize transit. Some may call it a "wealth transfer", but I would call it ending an unfair wealth transfer that is currently in effect in most places in North America. Second, it's not as if roads would be shut off, in general only drivers would have to pay, as they use roads much more than other road users. Third, I consider the effects this would have on land use patterns. By subsidizing road transport, what we do is create an incentive for people and companies to settle farther and farther away from the center of metropolitan areas. When it's an individual choice and they're willing to assume the consequences of that choice, OK, I'm perfectly fine with that. But why should everyone else subsidize their choice? Isn't that rewarding waste and punishing virtue? Those who make a responsible choice to live in places where they will not need to use much expensive public infrastructure end up paying taxes to subsidize people who make the choice to live in areas where essentially every trip they make will require extensive use of expensive public infrastructure? But what is worse is when companies decide to settle far away to benefit from the congestion-free, toll-free roads in the periphery of metro areas. By moving away from the center, which is often better served by transit and more walkable and bikable, these companies end up creating a situation where people who want to work there, or who want to purchase their goods and services, HAVE to buy a car to access them. When that process is repeated by most companies, you end up with a metropolitan area where people without cars lose access to 80-90% of jobs and services, this condemns many poor urban neighborhoods to despair and poverty from which they cannot escape, because they need cars to access economic opportunities to lift them out of poverty, but they don't have the money to own a car (which costs on average about 6 000$ a year), they would need a job to have the money to buy a car that they need to find a job. See the problem? So even if these policies I spoke about may have some negative impacts on some poor people who are barely able to afford cars as it is, I think in the long-run, they would shape cities to favor developments that increase access to jobs and services for the poor and reduce car-dependency. I don't know if I convince you but I hope at least you understand my reasoning.
TheCoelacanth 11y ago
The opposite is true in DC. There are no tolls between central DC and the affordable areas like EOTR DC and PG County, MD. The tolls are in the expensive suburbs in VA and Montgomery County, MD.

hugh4 11y ago

> It's not a wealth transfer, it's just internalizing some externalities I'm wary of that argument, it can be used to justify just about anything. It's all too easy to selectively internalise a politically unimportant group's externalities while letting others' remain external. Where are these millions of people supposed to move to, to be closer to work? Don't houses in DC start at around the seven-figure mark? People with children don't want to live in tiny apartments. How about we have a government which sees its job as helping people do what they want to do (ie live in big houses and get to their jobs which can't be relied upon to be within a one-mile radius) instead of one that tries to force people into its own vision of life?

WildUtah 11y ago
One policy innovation here is being tried in LA. With a $15 minimum wage you can drive away the jobs of the people who would be unable to pay their fare share for motorway space. Those jobs that can't pay $15 will simply relocate to small towns, the South, and rural areas far from LA. Those that can pay better will see workers paid more. Either way, the motorways clear up and motorists can afford to pay tolls that will cover externalities and eliminate gridlock. Every big city should be looking at a minimum wage at $15 or even $20. It makes life better for everyone.
simval 11y ago
Subsidizing big houses and overbuilding road networks while keeping them toll-free to allow people to live there while not losing access to jobs is actually the government forcing people into decision makers' own vision of life. That lifestyle was popular among the richest people, but it is extraordinarily expensive. As a result, you can only make it accessible to the middle-class by subsidies... but someone has to pay these subsidies. Not everyone can be a winner in the game of taxes and subsidies. So if you want to make that lifestyle more affordable, you are inherently saying that you are ready to make every other lifestyle LESS affordable by taxing them to provide the subsidies required to support your favored lifestyle. Even if you manage to get everyone into that lifestyle, you have moved a large part of the funding that goes into it from an optional price that people may or may not pay into a fixed price that everyone has to pay. In other words, just because someone chooses to opt out of that lifestyle doesn't free him from having to pay the cost associated to it. For example, let's look at plane tickets. Everyone wishes they could afford first class, but they can't. What would happen if governments decided to reduce the cost of first class tickets to make them more accessible? Well, a lot more people would opt for first class, and airlines would convert more and more of the plane to first class, which would only increase perpetually the amount of subsidies required to make first class more affordable. People who opt for economy class in the meanwhile wouldn't have access to these subsidies and would pay the full price of their tickets... AND pay the same taxes as people who buy first class tickets. So they pay taxes that reduce their purchasing power to subsidize first class ticket buyers, subsidies they can only access if they themselves opt for first class. Is this really a fair situation? That's basically what most of North America has been doing for 70 years. I'm not opposed to subsidies on principle, but I think subsidies need to fulfill social objectives that help society or make it more humane. How is subsidizing lifestyle choices that incur more costs, more waste and more pollution, to society helping to fulfill social objectives? If people want that lifestyle, fine, as long as they pay for it.