6 ms·

Rather than trying to force some particular vision of "the good life" on people, what if we tried to price transportation and other things appropriately? For e

Rather than trying to force some particular vision of "the good life" on people, what if we tried to price transportation and other things appropriately? For example, get rid of the gas tax. Toll all state and federally funded roads. Scale the toll according to the amount of wear and tear the vehicle causes for the road. Price something in to account for emissions. Make sure the tolls are high enough to pay for the road and its ongoing maintenance. Cameras capturing license plates at intersections can keep track of everything (tolled highways near me already work this way). Bonus points if you get municipalities on board and reduce property taxes being spent on transportation. If you started doing stuff like this, I think people's choices will start to change. When it costs $5 to drive 30 minutes in to work every day, people are going to choose to live in big houses with big lots in suburbia and drive everywhere. When they have to pay the full cost of making that drive, their preferences may start to change. Yes, a lot of stuff would have to change to get people to agree to this sort of thing and make it work. But the author is already talking about re-making cities, so we might as well do it in a way that maximizes freedom and consumer choice... right?

epistasis 8y ago
A bigger impediment to building walkable spaces is that zoning and codes usually prevent it from being built. From parking minimums, to very low maximum heights, to limiting the number of units that are allowed to be built on a plot of land. All the regulations put a cap on density, to prevent it from ever happening. Instead, some cities should try putting a floor on density: maximum number of parking spots (perhaps only enough for those with limited mobility), minimum building heights, and minimum number of units per parcel. Or, just let people build what they want. That would also result in getting more walkable neighborhoods, which are super valuable, both to the residents and cities. Legalize density.
- lgregg 8y ago
  > Or, just let people build what they want. Uh, no. I wouldn't want something seedy or some industrial manufacturing plant next to my kid's school. There is a purpose behind codes and zoning that is good. It's just as you mentioned when they are used to push an agenda that hurts everyone.
  - epistasis 8y ago
    I meant that in the sense of, make sure that there's enough of the type of living space that people actually want. Right now people have to pay absolutely MASSIVE premiums, both in terms of absolute space and in $/sqft, in order to live in dense walkable neighborhoods. And there's one reason: zoning has been bad and prevented many people from having the life they want. For health reasons, sure, separate industrial zones. For building safety, yes, have building codes. But as far as general office/retail and housing, we need far more places where growth is allowed to happen at least a little bit organically. Maybe have some small nudges here and there for central planning, but overall city planners build for what they want, not for what the populace wants.
    - lgregg 8y ago
      > But as far as general office/retail and housing, we need far more places where growth is allowed to happen at least a little bit organically. Maybe have some small nudges here and there for central planning, but overall city planners build for what they want, not for what the populace wants. I'm with you mostly, I'm for a bit more planning with buildings and land because they are long-term impacts. I'd be down for an approach like yours if there was a better process to run ideas and concepts by planners.
taeric 8y ago
I'm not sure the simplistic model would work that well. In part, because it creates a massively difficult bootstrapping problem. Is also a fairly ugly negative reinforcement mechanism. Consider, in no way can you fund the creation of a new road with such a toll. Since tolls, by definition, only apply to usage of existing ones. More, what happens when an unforeseen natural disaster hits? Suddenly toll costs sky rocket because the road was expensive to repair. Of course, at that point, you are back to the bootstrapping problem. If it raises tolls such that it is expensive to repair, how do you fund the removal when people stop using it? So, yes, I agree pricing the externalities into the system are a good idea. But like most good ideas, it is also very very very easy to get wrong. To disastrous results.
brockers 8y ago
Thank you. I always getting a little angry at these "We should..." posts that are posted by a modern philosophe who has some idealized way of seeing the world and is more than happy to limit other peoples choices to maximize that vision.
- walshemj 8y ago
  I tend to agree with you they tend to be academic architecture students who design "machines for living" which they think the "working class" will enjoy living in. Narrator voice they don't. Its what in away lead to Grenfell tower
ProfessorLayton 8y ago
If we actually billed those that actually caused road damage appropriately, then no it would not cost $5 to drive 30min to work. Semis are incredibly damaging to roads, they cause 1,400x more wear than cars! [1] — The very same semis city dwellers and anybody who buys anything relies on. Cars currently subsidize other, much more damaging vehicles' road damage, seeing as they're not paying 1,400x more in fuel tax. Anyway, the problem isn't transportation, it is the absurd zoning laws throughout the U.S. that force people to rely on personal cars to go anywhere. [1] https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/201432.pdf https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/201432.pdf
- AcerbicZero 8y ago
  Agreed. It's amazing how much damage medium single axled, and heavy multi-axled vehicles do to the roads, and while emissions from those vehicles are better than they once were, its still not great.
  - wahern 8y ago
    You can't ignore the reason the trucks exist in the first place. The trucks exist because towns and commercial spaces are spread out, and they're so spread out because of cars. It's sort of like saying that cars don't emit CO2, burning gasoline does. The gasoline is burnt to operate the cars. Trucks deliver products to our car-centric landscape. If everybody lived in cities we'd only need a fraction of the trucks.
    - MagnumOpus 8y ago
      You could however internalise the costs they cause by charging road taxes based on the amount of street damage a vehicle causes. This might actually create unexpected side effects, like semi trucks with 12 axles instead of 3 - but that would be a genuine contribution to lowering the costs of repairing roads!
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>Rather than trying to force some particular vision of "the good life" on people, what if we tried to price transportation and other things appropriately? I agree with this at least. >For example, get rid of the gas tax. Toll all state and federally funded roads... Lets do this with public transit too. Ticket sales should cover the full price of the ride. People who walk and bike shouldn't have to subsidize public transit they don't use. They should pay a sidewalk toll instead. No reason to stop there though, lets remove tax breaks for dependents and use the money to pay for public schools. People who's kids aren't in school shouldn't be subsidizing the cost of other peoples kids. We should also bill people when they call emergency services so that the rest of us don't have to subsidize it. People who need emergency services shouldn't externalize the cost onto society, it should be priced in. Now that we've done all that let's figure out that these things are all too expensive for poor people and nowhere near cheap for the middle class. Next let's come up with some sort of voucher system so that these people can use them at reduced cost. After that we can figure out that it's cheaper to just make using all these public resources cheap/free than it is to administrate the pay per use and income based discount system we just created. /s The point I'm trying to make is that public infrastructure is publicly funded for a reason. Having these things available to the population at near zero cost works out better for everyone than just making users pay for what they use.
- dbatten 8y ago
  You've basically just described a libertarian economic philosophy. We can have an intelligent conversation about whether that's a good idea or not, but it's a very serious political philosophy that lots of very intelligent people subscribe to...
  - wahern 8y ago
    Libertarianism may be a serious economic philosophy but it's a poor political philosophy. It completely ignores issues like path dependency, importance of culture and socialization, etc. Don't you find it odd that societies that exemplify the sort of globally optimal yet individually rational choices such as in Japan or Nordic countries have laws and norms more often than not in direct contradiction to Western Libertarian thinking? Libertarianism can only work if people have already strongly internalized a communitarian ethos. Without that ethos (internalized directly by the people or indirectly through its institutions) civilization cannot exist; basic game theory proves that. Pervasive non-kin selflessness is the defining characteristic that uniquely separates humans from every other species in existence.[1] The paradox is that we can get rid of coercive economic policies only once the Koch Brothers and Paul Ryans are replaced by hippies, or at least people substantially less motivated by bald self-interest. [1] We still don't understand how it arose, and so IMO all modern economic theories (libertarian or otherwise) are fundamentally handicapped unless and until we can throughly answer that question.
takk309 8y ago
The idea of tolling roads may work well in areas with high traffic volumes. However, what about rural areas that may only see a couple thousand vehicles a day? Take a state like Montana for example. We have a few urban areas and a huge amount of rural roads. Even parts of the interstate have an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of less than 4,000 vehicles a day (I-15 near the Montana/Idaho border). [1] If these were toll roads, the toll would either have to be too expensive or it would never actually pay for itself. [1] https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/datastats/traffic_maps.shtml https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/datastats/traffic_maps.s...
- lgregg 8y ago
  Well, look at the original purpose for the Interstate. One of them was for the military to be able to move freely should something happen. The actual name is "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways"
throwaway0255 8y ago
Optimistic visions of how government services should work need to take into account the dysfunctional and extraordinarily inefficient nature of the system you're plugging those responsibilities into. If you have the State of California implement this system, it's going to add 10 hours of paperwork and phone calls to every year of every adult's life in perpetuity forever with no hope of ever being improved or rolled back. Whatever you initially think should form the basis for these tolls will be completely thrown out 5 years later, and the tolls will be used as a generalized fungible revenue source for the state. So your proposal is effectively "raise taxes and create more jobs that don't actually produce anything and make it more expensive to drive."

epistasis 8y ago

A bigger impediment to building walkable spaces is that zoning and codes usually prevent it from being built. From parking minimums, to very low maximum heights, to limiting the number of units that are allowed to be built on a plot of land. All the regulations put a cap on density, to prevent it from ever happening. Instead, some cities should try putting a floor on density: maximum number of parking spots (perhaps only enough for those with limited mobility), minimum building heights, and minimum number of units per parcel. Or, just let people build what they want. That would also result in getting more walkable neighborhoods, which are super valuable, both to the residents and cities. Legalize density.

lgregg 8y ago
> Or, just let people build what they want. Uh, no. I wouldn't want something seedy or some industrial manufacturing plant next to my kid's school. There is a purpose behind codes and zoning that is good. It's just as you mentioned when they are used to push an agenda that hurts everyone.
- epistasis 8y ago
  I meant that in the sense of, make sure that there's enough of the type of living space that people actually want. Right now people have to pay absolutely MASSIVE premiums, both in terms of absolute space and in $/sqft, in order to live in dense walkable neighborhoods. And there's one reason: zoning has been bad and prevented many people from having the life they want. For health reasons, sure, separate industrial zones. For building safety, yes, have building codes. But as far as general office/retail and housing, we need far more places where growth is allowed to happen at least a little bit organically. Maybe have some small nudges here and there for central planning, but overall city planners build for what they want, not for what the populace wants.
  - lgregg 8y ago
    > But as far as general office/retail and housing, we need far more places where growth is allowed to happen at least a little bit organically. Maybe have some small nudges here and there for central planning, but overall city planners build for what they want, not for what the populace wants. I'm with you mostly, I'm for a bit more planning with buildings and land because they are long-term impacts. I'd be down for an approach like yours if there was a better process to run ideas and concepts by planners.

taeric 8y ago

I'm not sure the simplistic model would work that well. In part, because it creates a massively difficult bootstrapping problem. Is also a fairly ugly negative reinforcement mechanism. Consider, in no way can you fund the creation of a new road with such a toll. Since tolls, by definition, only apply to usage of existing ones. More, what happens when an unforeseen natural disaster hits? Suddenly toll costs sky rocket because the road was expensive to repair. Of course, at that point, you are back to the bootstrapping problem. If it raises tolls such that it is expensive to repair, how do you fund the removal when people stop using it? So, yes, I agree pricing the externalities into the system are a good idea. But like most good ideas, it is also very very very easy to get wrong. To disastrous results.

brockers 8y ago

Thank you. I always getting a little angry at these "We should..." posts that are posted by a modern philosophe who has some idealized way of seeing the world and is more than happy to limit other peoples choices to maximize that vision.

walshemj 8y ago
I tend to agree with you they tend to be academic architecture students who design "machines for living" which they think the "working class" will enjoy living in. Narrator voice they don't. Its what in away lead to Grenfell tower

ProfessorLayton 8y ago

If we actually billed those that actually caused road damage appropriately, then no it would not cost $5 to drive 30min to work. Semis are incredibly damaging to roads, they cause 1,400x more wear than cars! [1] — The very same semis city dwellers and anybody who buys anything relies on. Cars currently subsidize other, much more damaging vehicles' road damage, seeing as they're not paying 1,400x more in fuel tax. Anyway, the problem isn't transportation, it is the absurd zoning laws throughout the U.S. that force people to rely on personal cars to go anywhere. [1] https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/201432.pdf https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/201432.pdf

AcerbicZero 8y ago
Agreed. It's amazing how much damage medium single axled, and heavy multi-axled vehicles do to the roads, and while emissions from those vehicles are better than they once were, its still not great.
- wahern 8y ago
  You can't ignore the reason the trucks exist in the first place. The trucks exist because towns and commercial spaces are spread out, and they're so spread out because of cars. It's sort of like saying that cars don't emit CO2, burning gasoline does. The gasoline is burnt to operate the cars. Trucks deliver products to our car-centric landscape. If everybody lived in cities we'd only need a fraction of the trucks.
  - MagnumOpus 8y ago
    You could however internalise the costs they cause by charging road taxes based on the amount of street damage a vehicle causes. This might actually create unexpected side effects, like semi trucks with 12 axles instead of 3 - but that would be a genuine contribution to lowering the costs of repairing roads!

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>Rather than trying to force some particular vision of "the good life" on people, what if we tried to price transportation and other things appropriately? I agree with this at least. >For example, get rid of the gas tax. Toll all state and federally funded roads... Lets do this with public transit too. Ticket sales should cover the full price of the ride. People who walk and bike shouldn't have to subsidize public transit they don't use. They should pay a sidewalk toll instead. No reason to stop there though, lets remove tax breaks for dependents and use the money to pay for public schools. People who's kids aren't in school shouldn't be subsidizing the cost of other peoples kids. We should also bill people when they call emergency services so that the rest of us don't have to subsidize it. People who need emergency services shouldn't externalize the cost onto society, it should be priced in. Now that we've done all that let's figure out that these things are all too expensive for poor people and nowhere near cheap for the middle class. Next let's come up with some sort of voucher system so that these people can use them at reduced cost. After that we can figure out that it's cheaper to just make using all these public resources cheap/free than it is to administrate the pay per use and income based discount system we just created. /s The point I'm trying to make is that public infrastructure is publicly funded for a reason. Having these things available to the population at near zero cost works out better for everyone than just making users pay for what they use.

dbatten 8y ago
You've basically just described a libertarian economic philosophy. We can have an intelligent conversation about whether that's a good idea or not, but it's a very serious political philosophy that lots of very intelligent people subscribe to...
- wahern 8y ago
  Libertarianism may be a serious economic philosophy but it's a poor political philosophy. It completely ignores issues like path dependency, importance of culture and socialization, etc. Don't you find it odd that societies that exemplify the sort of globally optimal yet individually rational choices such as in Japan or Nordic countries have laws and norms more often than not in direct contradiction to Western Libertarian thinking? Libertarianism can only work if people have already strongly internalized a communitarian ethos. Without that ethos (internalized directly by the people or indirectly through its institutions) civilization cannot exist; basic game theory proves that. Pervasive non-kin selflessness is the defining characteristic that uniquely separates humans from every other species in existence.[1] The paradox is that we can get rid of coercive economic policies only once the Koch Brothers and Paul Ryans are replaced by hippies, or at least people substantially less motivated by bald self-interest. [1] We still don't understand how it arose, and so IMO all modern economic theories (libertarian or otherwise) are fundamentally handicapped unless and until we can throughly answer that question.

takk309 8y ago

The idea of tolling roads may work well in areas with high traffic volumes. However, what about rural areas that may only see a couple thousand vehicles a day? Take a state like Montana for example. We have a few urban areas and a huge amount of rural roads. Even parts of the interstate have an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of less than 4,000 vehicles a day (I-15 near the Montana/Idaho border). [1] If these were toll roads, the toll would either have to be too expensive or it would never actually pay for itself. [1] https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/datastats/traffic_maps.shtml https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/datastats/traffic_maps.s...

lgregg 8y ago
Well, look at the original purpose for the Interstate. One of them was for the military to be able to move freely should something happen. The actual name is "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways"

throwaway0255 8y ago

Optimistic visions of how government services should work need to take into account the dysfunctional and extraordinarily inefficient nature of the system you're plugging those responsibilities into. If you have the State of California implement this system, it's going to add 10 hours of paperwork and phone calls to every year of every adult's life in perpetuity forever with no hope of ever being improved or rolled back. Whatever you initially think should form the basis for these tolls will be completely thrown out 5 years later, and the tolls will be used as a generalized fungible revenue source for the state. So your proposal is effectively "raise taxes and create more jobs that don't actually produce anything and make it more expensive to drive."