5 ms·

This article conflates two very different things: creating new tolls on existing infrastructure, and creating new toll-funded infrastructures. The first one cha

by erispoe 11y ago

This article conflates two very different things: creating new tolls on existing infrastructure, and creating new toll-funded infrastructures. The first one changes the incentives of existing users, the other one is creating induced demand for wealthy commuters. Wealthy or not, induced demand is still induced demand, and will create new congestion on the existing network. The main fallacy, however, is the goal of reducing congestion. If we want to move trips from cars to more sustainable means, congestion is a way of reducing the competitive speed of individual vehicles, therefore shifting the incentives towards public transit. edit: typos

jseliger 11y ago
More simply, I'd observe that tolls and mass transit aren't rivalrous: for that matter, one could earmark funds from the former to pay for the latter. I don't see why assuming too that a particular toll scheme that didn't work in a particular place means that no such schemes can work anywhere under any system.
- _delirium 11y ago
  NYC is an example that imo works roughly as intended. The MTA owns a number of the bridges into Manhattan, which it charges a toll for. The toll is set significantly above the break-even level needed to pay for bridge maintenance, and the surplus is used to cross-subsidize public transit.
- jfim 11y ago
  They're actually complimentary. If you think about it, having a toll system without good public transit isn't going to reduce congestion very much for inelastic demand (eg. trucks going to deliver goods, people going to work) and is essentially a tax. However, when there is both a good public transit and a toll system, people can then pick between paying the toll or taking public transit. The theory for toll systems is that by having a congestion charge, people will avoid using roads when they're congested makes sense, although it disregards several factors. Most people have to go to work between certain hours (which is why during rush hour the trains in Tokyo are crammed with people while outside of them they're not crowded at all) and that people often cannot relocate closer to work for various reasons (eg. children, unavailability of housing, etc.). Furthermore, specialized white collar work (eg. software developers, lawyers, accountants, actuaries, etc.) often is only done in city cores, not in suburbs, meaning that people not living in the city core either have the choice to pay the toll or be underemployed. As you mention, earmarking tolls to go towards improving public transit is a great idea; it will make the ratio of people paying tolls and taking public transit tend towards its equilibrium, as the more people deem public transit unusable, the more funds will go towards improving it.
  - thisrod 11y ago
    There is an extra benefit for public transport. If people have to pay to drive, they will be willing to pay more to ride. The more users pay, the less it costs the public, and more of it gets built.
    - Piskvorrr 11y ago
      In theory. In practice, the usual public-funding SNAFU abounds (the more complex the transport network, the worse).
Retric 11y ago
The main fallacy is limited highways cause congestion. A highway can support a lot of traffic, it's exits and on ramps are generally the problem as traffic just backs up. Which often turns extra traffic lanes into really expensive parking lots.
- cromulent 11y ago
  Yes, the road system is analogous to your blood vessel system - the smaller arterioles must have at least equivalent volume to the arteries or else you get bottlenecks. The highway can only function properly if vehicles can easily exit and enter. As they normally funnel vehicles into built up areas, they fail at peak times.
  - dajohnson89 11y ago
    Does it follow that the more exits per given mile of highway, the better traffic will flow?
    - jacobolus 11y ago
      In areas where people want to get off at many exits, a network of surface arterial streets has better commute-time throughput than a highway. Highways are great for long-distance trips to sprawling suburban destinations. They don’t really mix well with dense cities though. Highways have high speed but low capacity relative to the amount of space they take overall, in comparison to surface streets. When they reach a certain traffic density, highways get blocked up, even if you add a lot of exits. http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-induced-demand-really-about-road.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-induced-demand-re... (I think that blog may have better posts on this topic, but that’s the one I could find in a quick search.)
      - zappo2938 11y ago
        Do you know why timed lights on one way boulevards are considered bad?
Natsu 11y ago
Congestion, among its other faults, leaves cars idling on the roads wasting gas. It also harms some of the more common mass transit systems. For example, nobody is going to see a bus as the faster option when they're both traveling the same congested streets as the cars do. That said, it does work sometimes. For example, if you're going to a baseball game, it's better to use the light rail than to go anywhere near the downtown traffic in Phoenix.
- grub5000 11y ago
  If you have effective bus lanes (such as in Edinburgh), the busses offer a visibly faster alternative to driving. Even at peak time.
  - beobab 11y ago
    I humbly suggest "especially at peak times".
    - arethuza 11y ago
      Be thankful that Edinburgh's roads weren't "improved" in the 1960s: http://www.gcat.org.uk/blog/?tag=edinburgh-motorways http://www.gcat.org.uk/blog/?tag=edinburgh-motorways
      - gsnedders 11y ago
        Whereas Glasgow still suffers from its motorway plan having been left half done, leaving the city with a single motorway crossing of the river (with only two lanes, down from five as you start to approach the city!).
  - HerpDerpLerp 11y ago
    Surely everyone is on the tram now ;)
  - Natsu 11y ago
    We have HOV lanes, but those are on the freeway and none of the buses I ever rode used those on their route, though I have seen empty buses using them on occasion.
briandear 11y ago
So make traffic worse to fix congestion? That's like killing the baby to save on diapers.
- erispoe 11y ago
  We don't need to fix congestion. We need to make people move better, that's a very different problem.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
>This article conflates two very different things: creating new tolls on existing infrastructure, and creating new toll-funded infrastructures. The conflation is irrelevant. Both things may be rejected outright without consideration of their subtleties. Infrastructure of the type funded by tolls is massive and takes up significant space. No level of tolling will be able to compensate for the disruption to the non-users of the infrastructure.

by erispoe 11y ago

jseliger 11y ago

More simply, I'd observe that tolls and mass transit aren't rivalrous: for that matter, one could earmark funds from the former to pay for the latter. I don't see why assuming too that a particular toll scheme that didn't work in a particular place means that no such schemes can work anywhere under any system.

_delirium 11y ago
NYC is an example that imo works roughly as intended. The MTA owns a number of the bridges into Manhattan, which it charges a toll for. The toll is set significantly above the break-even level needed to pay for bridge maintenance, and the surplus is used to cross-subsidize public transit.
jfim 11y ago
They're actually complimentary. If you think about it, having a toll system without good public transit isn't going to reduce congestion very much for inelastic demand (eg. trucks going to deliver goods, people going to work) and is essentially a tax. However, when there is both a good public transit and a toll system, people can then pick between paying the toll or taking public transit. The theory for toll systems is that by having a congestion charge, people will avoid using roads when they're congested makes sense, although it disregards several factors. Most people have to go to work between certain hours (which is why during rush hour the trains in Tokyo are crammed with people while outside of them they're not crowded at all) and that people often cannot relocate closer to work for various reasons (eg. children, unavailability of housing, etc.). Furthermore, specialized white collar work (eg. software developers, lawyers, accountants, actuaries, etc.) often is only done in city cores, not in suburbs, meaning that people not living in the city core either have the choice to pay the toll or be underemployed. As you mention, earmarking tolls to go towards improving public transit is a great idea; it will make the ratio of people paying tolls and taking public transit tend towards its equilibrium, as the more people deem public transit unusable, the more funds will go towards improving it.
- thisrod 11y ago
  There is an extra benefit for public transport. If people have to pay to drive, they will be willing to pay more to ride. The more users pay, the less it costs the public, and more of it gets built.
  - Piskvorrr 11y ago
    In theory. In practice, the usual public-funding SNAFU abounds (the more complex the transport network, the worse).

Retric 11y ago

The main fallacy is limited highways cause congestion. A highway can support a lot of traffic, it's exits and on ramps are generally the problem as traffic just backs up. Which often turns extra traffic lanes into really expensive parking lots.

cromulent 11y ago
Yes, the road system is analogous to your blood vessel system - the smaller arterioles must have at least equivalent volume to the arteries or else you get bottlenecks. The highway can only function properly if vehicles can easily exit and enter. As they normally funnel vehicles into built up areas, they fail at peak times.
- dajohnson89 11y ago
  Does it follow that the more exits per given mile of highway, the better traffic will flow?
  - jacobolus 11y ago
    In areas where people want to get off at many exits, a network of surface arterial streets has better commute-time throughput than a highway. Highways are great for long-distance trips to sprawling suburban destinations. They don’t really mix well with dense cities though. Highways have high speed but low capacity relative to the amount of space they take overall, in comparison to surface streets. When they reach a certain traffic density, highways get blocked up, even if you add a lot of exits. http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-induced-demand-really-about-road.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/07/is-induced-demand-re... (I think that blog may have better posts on this topic, but that’s the one I could find in a quick search.)
    - zappo2938 11y ago
      Do you know why timed lights on one way boulevards are considered bad?

Natsu 11y ago

Congestion, among its other faults, leaves cars idling on the roads wasting gas. It also harms some of the more common mass transit systems. For example, nobody is going to see a bus as the faster option when they're both traveling the same congested streets as the cars do. That said, it does work sometimes. For example, if you're going to a baseball game, it's better to use the light rail than to go anywhere near the downtown traffic in Phoenix.

grub5000 11y ago
If you have effective bus lanes (such as in Edinburgh), the busses offer a visibly faster alternative to driving. Even at peak time.
- beobab 11y ago
  I humbly suggest "especially at peak times".
  - arethuza 11y ago
    Be thankful that Edinburgh's roads weren't "improved" in the 1960s: http://www.gcat.org.uk/blog/?tag=edinburgh-motorways http://www.gcat.org.uk/blog/?tag=edinburgh-motorways
    - gsnedders 11y ago
      Whereas Glasgow still suffers from its motorway plan having been left half done, leaving the city with a single motorway crossing of the river (with only two lanes, down from five as you start to approach the city!).
- HerpDerpLerp 11y ago
  Surely everyone is on the tram now ;)
- Natsu 11y ago
  We have HOV lanes, but those are on the freeway and none of the buses I ever rode used those on their route, though I have seen empty buses using them on occasion.

briandear 11y ago

So make traffic worse to fix congestion? That's like killing the baby to save on diapers.

erispoe 11y ago
We don't need to fix congestion. We need to make people move better, that's a very different problem.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

>This article conflates two very different things: creating new tolls on existing infrastructure, and creating new toll-funded infrastructures. The conflation is irrelevant. Both things may be rejected outright without consideration of their subtleties. Infrastructure of the type funded by tolls is massive and takes up significant space. No level of tolling will be able to compensate for the disruption to the non-users of the infrastructure.