3 ms·

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/m

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.