6 ms·

I'm a fan of applying congestion charges to every road, not just arterials. Why not? We have the technology. The price mechanism is what lets us allocate scarce

I'm a fan of applying congestion charges to every road, not just arterials. Why not? We have the technology. The price mechanism is what lets us allocate scarce resources to their most efficient use, and applying it to the very short term real estate market for road space can only ensure that we get the maximum economic value out of a fixed number of lane miles.

jngreenlee 9y ago
I like your approach, which could also be stated as "either build more if you're going to charge 0, or else charge based on privacy/demand" This would force employers to look at flexible hours, work from home, etc., to keep employees. Ive often thought how strange it is that the marginal use of a road is free...which can cause waste, abuse of the commons, etc. It's also strange to be on a high floor in SF, CHI, NYC, etc., And look down at the grid of streets that could be valuable real estate...yet something like 50% of all and (and the air space above) is dedicated to hundred-year-old technology!
- quotemstr 9y ago
  Right. "Free" triggers a host of bugs in the human cost estimation system. Put a price on something and we can start to approach it more rationally and make the necessary trade-offs. I suspect funding for transit would increase if the tolls needed to keep city streets at a free-flow traffic level were immediately apparent.
  - b1daly 9y ago
    As a counter argument , forcing people to factor in the cost of a toll as a factor in making an a given trio could just as easily lead to sub-optimal underutilization of what has historically (in the US anyway) a public good. People are no more rational about making small purchases than they are about providing the necessary funds through taxation. I suspect most people intuitively grasp that having freely accessible public roadways is well worth the cost.
    - cimmanom 9y ago
      Yeah, tolls don't seem to cause under-utilization for bridges (the ones I know are still bumper to bumper at rush hour), unless you mean relative to free routes in the same area that probably should be tolled but aren't.
- jayd16 9y ago
  >This would force employers to look at flexible hours, work from home, etc., to keep employees. Costing employee commute time hasn't kindled such a change. Why would employee taxes do it?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I'd like to see a way to make employers more responsible for commute times. The location and centralization of offices, after all, are decisions of the employer. Many (most?) employees would be more than happy to work and live in the same town instead of commute, but employers don't generally give that option. A simple mechanism might be to start classifying commuting as a form of work for hire and require compensation (perhaps at half rate?) for the work.
jayd16 9y ago
Well its pretty regressive as far as taxes go. Plus, now even if gentrification doesn't price you out of your own neighborhood you might get priced out of your own road if you happen to be between residential and commercial zones.
- r00fus 9y ago
  So is a gas tax if you assume the only way to move around is petroleum based. Likewise this assumption of yours is based on the fact that people can't get around except via vehicles. However, it could be done such that residents are exempt and even strayers will only get charged after X trips.
  - quotemstr 9y ago
    All user fees are regressive --- yet we don't seem to have a problem with the rich and the poor paying the same for a beer or a gallon of milk. The kind of thinking that concludes that it's somehow wrong to charge two people with differing incomes the same amount of money for the same good is the kind of thinking that taken to its logical conclusion leads us to forcible leveling of material wealth and central economic planning. The experience of the 20th century demonstrates that this approach does not work.
    - wwweston 9y ago
      > All user fees are regressive --- yet we don't seem to have a problem with the rich and the poor paying the same for a beer or a gallon of milk. It's almost like some purchases function differently than others, and reasonable people might choose situationally varying models/incentives when considering social policy decisions.
    - jayd16 9y ago
      >gallon of milk. What? We subsidize food all the time.
      - quotemstr 9y ago
s2g 9y ago
this is a bad joke right?
- dang 9y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
kalleboo 9y ago
This is basically what Singapore is doing with their next-generation congestion charge. It will be GPS-based so that their existing congestion charge can be reconfigured freely based on traffic conditions. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/ncs-mhi-to-build-islandwide-satellite-based-erp-for-556m https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/ncs-mhi-to-...
humanrebar 9y ago
There are cogent arguments against congestion pricing: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/04/michael_munger_5.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/04/michael_munger_5.ht... If I recall correctly, the main arguments is that it basically just turns into another tax and doesn't necessarily improve congestion. In theory, for congestion pricing to work, at least in the short run, you want people with flexible schedules or less "important" reasons to be on the road to reschedule or cancel their trips for everyone else. The problem is that the congestion taxes (so far) don't end up paying people for driving another time. And they don't necessarily pay for new and better infrastructure.
- ascagnel_ 9y ago
  Congestion pricing isn't designed to shift travel times -- it's designed to shift the mode of transport away from single-occupancy vehicles. And for that to work, you need to pair it with easily accessible alternatives -- bus stops, bike lanes, subways/rail travel, etc. If it costs me a $20 congestion charge to commute to work, but a $10 train ticket or $4 bus ride, those cheaper alternatives become viable options even if they increase total travel time.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    The argument is that all the revenues from congestion pricing get filtered through the general fund, so it's really just a sin tax at the end of the day. It's not a way to sustainably fund a public good through demand for the good.

jngreenlee 9y ago

I like your approach, which could also be stated as "either build more if you're going to charge 0, or else charge based on privacy/demand" This would force employers to look at flexible hours, work from home, etc., to keep employees. Ive often thought how strange it is that the marginal use of a road is free...which can cause waste, abuse of the commons, etc. It's also strange to be on a high floor in SF, CHI, NYC, etc., And look down at the grid of streets that could be valuable real estate...yet something like 50% of all and (and the air space above) is dedicated to hundred-year-old technology!

quotemstr 9y ago
Right. "Free" triggers a host of bugs in the human cost estimation system. Put a price on something and we can start to approach it more rationally and make the necessary trade-offs. I suspect funding for transit would increase if the tolls needed to keep city streets at a free-flow traffic level were immediately apparent.
- b1daly 9y ago
  As a counter argument , forcing people to factor in the cost of a toll as a factor in making an a given trio could just as easily lead to sub-optimal underutilization of what has historically (in the US anyway) a public good. People are no more rational about making small purchases than they are about providing the necessary funds through taxation. I suspect most people intuitively grasp that having freely accessible public roadways is well worth the cost.
  - cimmanom 9y ago
    Yeah, tolls don't seem to cause under-utilization for bridges (the ones I know are still bumper to bumper at rush hour), unless you mean relative to free routes in the same area that probably should be tolled but aren't.
jayd16 9y ago
>This would force employers to look at flexible hours, work from home, etc., to keep employees. Costing employee commute time hasn't kindled such a change. Why would employee taxes do it?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I'd like to see a way to make employers more responsible for commute times. The location and centralization of offices, after all, are decisions of the employer. Many (most?) employees would be more than happy to work and live in the same town instead of commute, but employers don't generally give that option. A simple mechanism might be to start classifying commuting as a form of work for hire and require compensation (perhaps at half rate?) for the work.

jayd16 9y ago

Well its pretty regressive as far as taxes go. Plus, now even if gentrification doesn't price you out of your own neighborhood you might get priced out of your own road if you happen to be between residential and commercial zones.

r00fus 9y ago
So is a gas tax if you assume the only way to move around is petroleum based. Likewise this assumption of yours is based on the fact that people can't get around except via vehicles. However, it could be done such that residents are exempt and even strayers will only get charged after X trips.
- quotemstr 9y ago
  All user fees are regressive --- yet we don't seem to have a problem with the rich and the poor paying the same for a beer or a gallon of milk. The kind of thinking that concludes that it's somehow wrong to charge two people with differing incomes the same amount of money for the same good is the kind of thinking that taken to its logical conclusion leads us to forcible leveling of material wealth and central economic planning. The experience of the 20th century demonstrates that this approach does not work.
  - wwweston 9y ago
    > All user fees are regressive --- yet we don't seem to have a problem with the rich and the poor paying the same for a beer or a gallon of milk. It's almost like some purchases function differently than others, and reasonable people might choose situationally varying models/incentives when considering social policy decisions.
  - jayd16 9y ago
    >gallon of milk. What? We subsidize food all the time.
    - quotemstr 9y ago

s2g 9y ago

this is a bad joke right?

dang 9y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

kalleboo 9y ago

This is basically what Singapore is doing with their next-generation congestion charge. It will be GPS-based so that their existing congestion charge can be reconfigured freely based on traffic conditions. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/ncs-mhi-to-build-islandwide-satellite-based-erp-for-556m https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/ncs-mhi-to-...

humanrebar 9y ago

There are cogent arguments against congestion pricing: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/04/michael_munger_5.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/04/michael_munger_5.ht... If I recall correctly, the main arguments is that it basically just turns into another tax and doesn't necessarily improve congestion. In theory, for congestion pricing to work, at least in the short run, you want people with flexible schedules or less "important" reasons to be on the road to reschedule or cancel their trips for everyone else. The problem is that the congestion taxes (so far) don't end up paying people for driving another time. And they don't necessarily pay for new and better infrastructure.

ascagnel_ 9y ago
Congestion pricing isn't designed to shift travel times -- it's designed to shift the mode of transport away from single-occupancy vehicles. And for that to work, you need to pair it with easily accessible alternatives -- bus stops, bike lanes, subways/rail travel, etc. If it costs me a $20 congestion charge to commute to work, but a $10 train ticket or $4 bus ride, those cheaper alternatives become viable options even if they increase total travel time.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  The argument is that all the revenues from congestion pricing get filtered through the general fund, so it's really just a sin tax at the end of the day. It's not a way to sustainably fund a public good through demand for the good.