4 ms·

I would like you to reconsider this point. Specifically, 1. driving causes pollution 2. people local to the freeway are heavily impacted by the pollution, 3

I would like you to reconsider this point. Specifically, 1. driving causes pollution 2. people local to the freeway are heavily impacted by the pollution, 3. global warming is a real issue - solo drivers are a heavy contributor. 4. the freeway cost money and should have to pay its costs same as transit systems are made to pay their costs. fyi - i carpool to work / take transit. I would rather see free buses and heavily charged car usage.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eru 9y ago
Add in that subsidising commuting by comparison punishes locating closer to your destination.
Retric 9y ago
That's what gas taxes are for. Living near a freeway you are better off if they reduced congestion. Increasing congestion increases pollution as cars accelerate and break more frequently etc.
- avar 9y ago
  Fuel taxes are a very crude tool, road tolls are much better instrument to actually regulate the behavior you care about. If you raise fuel taxes because there's too much congestion that's going to equally affect someone who lives in some rural area where congestion isn't an issue at all, and someone who's driving down a busy freeway every day contributing to congestion. You also raise the price of gasoline, which has other uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with road transport. If you want to discourage specific behavior you should tax that specific behavior, not tax something one or two steps removed from the behavior you care about.
  - Retric 9y ago
    You could have regional fuel charges. However, you don't want to discrage driving in a specific place you want to reduce it everywhere to reduce pollution everywhere. PS: People often say you can't out build congestion, but the data in no way supports that argument. D.C. Metro area for example has horrible traffic, but just looking at road layout the failures are obvious.
    - avar 9y ago
      Discouraging driving in general is one thing with one market price, discouraging driving where it leads to congestion is another thing with a higher market price. Not all vehicles that cause congestion even use gasoline, which is another reason for why trying to solve congestion with higher fuel taxes is a bad idea. Your Tesla is just as bad for congestion as a gas guzzler. Even ignoring that, regional fuel charges don't fix the problem. There's plenty of big cities where you can drive in specific areas or at specific times without causing any congestion problems, which is why it makes sense to charge road tolls on specific roads at specific times. Vehicles can also drive to different regions to fill up, which becomes a big problem of arbitrage if you try to make the regions too granular.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Congestion already has it's own price directly in increased travel time. Which pushes people to use optimal routes to a destination. However, routing around congestion increases pollution via trip length. So you want to increase peoples ability to go from A > B, not hinder peopling moving from A > B with increased cost. PS: We want higher mileage people to get electric cars, so having no transit tax actually efficiently promotes higher mileage people from making the switch first. It's just one of many subsides associated with electric cars, but we will eventually just charge based on odometer readings.
        avar 9y ago
        > Congestion already has it's own price > directly in increased travel time. Which is clearly not enough, as detailed in the article. If people only had to pay with their own time they would, and the road would be congested, hence the high toll. This is basic supply & demand. You just keep asserting that people should pay for their pollution, I agree! But that's not always the maximum price you should pay. > charge based on odometer readings. Which would be another case of not charging based on the actual cost. You could drive your street legal car around in circles on a private track, and you should pay almost no road tax, but someone who exclusively uses public roads should pay more. Under this scheme you'd pay the same for both cars.
closeparen 9y ago
Pressure to take transit, coupled with few transit stations and low-rise/single family zoning around those transit stations, is worse: now instead of sitting in traffic, commuters with the least access to premium real estate must walk the furthest.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

eru 9y ago

Add in that subsidising commuting by comparison punishes locating closer to your destination.

Retric 9y ago

That's what gas taxes are for. Living near a freeway you are better off if they reduced congestion. Increasing congestion increases pollution as cars accelerate and break more frequently etc.

avar 9y ago
Fuel taxes are a very crude tool, road tolls are much better instrument to actually regulate the behavior you care about. If you raise fuel taxes because there's too much congestion that's going to equally affect someone who lives in some rural area where congestion isn't an issue at all, and someone who's driving down a busy freeway every day contributing to congestion. You also raise the price of gasoline, which has other uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with road transport. If you want to discourage specific behavior you should tax that specific behavior, not tax something one or two steps removed from the behavior you care about.
- Retric 9y ago
  You could have regional fuel charges. However, you don't want to discrage driving in a specific place you want to reduce it everywhere to reduce pollution everywhere. PS: People often say you can't out build congestion, but the data in no way supports that argument. D.C. Metro area for example has horrible traffic, but just looking at road layout the failures are obvious.
  - avar 9y ago
    Discouraging driving in general is one thing with one market price, discouraging driving where it leads to congestion is another thing with a higher market price. Not all vehicles that cause congestion even use gasoline, which is another reason for why trying to solve congestion with higher fuel taxes is a bad idea. Your Tesla is just as bad for congestion as a gas guzzler. Even ignoring that, regional fuel charges don't fix the problem. There's plenty of big cities where you can drive in specific areas or at specific times without causing any congestion problems, which is why it makes sense to charge road tolls on specific roads at specific times. Vehicles can also drive to different regions to fill up, which becomes a big problem of arbitrage if you try to make the regions too granular.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Congestion already has it's own price directly in increased travel time. Which pushes people to use optimal routes to a destination. However, routing around congestion increases pollution via trip length. So you want to increase peoples ability to go from A > B, not hinder peopling moving from A > B with increased cost. PS: We want higher mileage people to get electric cars, so having no transit tax actually efficiently promotes higher mileage people from making the switch first. It's just one of many subsides associated with electric cars, but we will eventually just charge based on odometer readings.
      - avar 9y ago
        > Congestion already has it's own price > directly in increased travel time. Which is clearly not enough, as detailed in the article. If people only had to pay with their own time they would, and the road would be congested, hence the high toll. This is basic supply & demand. You just keep asserting that people should pay for their pollution, I agree! But that's not always the maximum price you should pay. > charge based on odometer readings. Which would be another case of not charging based on the actual cost. You could drive your street legal car around in circles on a private track, and you should pay almost no road tax, but someone who exclusively uses public roads should pay more. Under this scheme you'd pay the same for both cars.

closeparen 9y ago

Pressure to take transit, coupled with few transit stations and low-rise/single family zoning around those transit stations, is worse: now instead of sitting in traffic, commuters with the least access to premium real estate must walk the furthest.