5 ms·

I like the "rich" driving lane idea - put up X licenses for auction in each city, let people bid up the price, let the market decide how much time is worth.

tomjen3 16y ago
Yeah, thats the thing - I didn't get why his solution was "bad" in that case.
- zck 16y ago
  Possibly so he doesn't have to waste time defending it; the argument will center on whether this kind of thing is a good idea, not whether this specific idea is good.
ry0ohki 16y ago
These were kind of proposed in DC (I think they may actually exist in San Diego or somewhere), where you pay a variable rate to use the carpool lanes based on demand. So during rush hour it would cost $6 and 11am on a saturday it would cost $.50. People didn't like the idea because they would be "Lexus lanes" giving special privileges to the rich. Scott Adams is right that if we really want to solve the budge problems we may need to accept that the people who can help the most may need some sort of special privileges.
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "we may need to accept that the people who can help the most may need some sort of special privileges." Because no-bid contracts, not going to jail when they commit crimes, real education for their kids, not living in crime zones, food that isn't poison, actual health care, living an extra three years, etc. aren't enough already.
  - viraptor 16y ago
    To some extent... no, they aren't. They're the status quo. If you change nothing, the rich will still get them. That was the big point really. If you want to share some of their money, propose something else in exchange. It will only change during an actual complete crash of the value of money. And even then it's not guaranteed, because they will still have access to an extensive network of influential people, while "we" won't.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    no bid contracts, not going to jail when they commit crimes I'd speculate that the vast majority of these benefits are given to government workers, not to the rich. Any government worker with a union has a no-bid contract (it's illegal for competitors to underbid him), and you can find plenty of videos on youtube of cops committing crimes they get away with [1]. [1] Occasionally they are disciplined with a paid vacation.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  Utah recently installed variable-toll express lanes. It seems to me they make overall congestion worse by creating traffic jams at the entrances/exits to these lanes.
jroid 16y ago
Why not charge a toll depending on traffic ? As the traffic increases, the toll increases (and vice versa), which will keep the lane fast moving. Not my idea, someone has already implemented this.
georgecmu 16y ago
I always thought that institutionalized speeding would be very successful both in terms of additional revenues and time saved. Right now highway speed limits are set to a sort of common denominator: safest for the worst car and driver on the road. But if you're driving a modern, well-maintained car and are adequately trained, there's no evidence that you'd be unsafe driving 20 mph over the speed limit. So, why not for an extra, non-nominal, fee, raise speed limits on interstate highways to qualified drivers? Of course they'd have to take additional driving lessons, pass extra driving tests to extend their privilege every year, and drive only approved cars, i.e. no 1996 Ford Explorers need apply.
- ams6110 16y ago
  The thing that makes speeding unsafe (up to a point) is not so much the speed itself but the delta between the slowest and fastest cars on the road.
  - georgecmu 16y ago
    Correct, except I would say "in the lane" rather than "on the road". Congestion would limit the speed naturally, but existing regulations such as 'slower vehicles stay in right lane' etc would actually have to be enforced for this to work.
    - jmaygarden 16y ago
      I'd pay an extra 1% if they would just get all the slow folks out of the passing lanes!!!
z2amiller 16y ago
This already exists in California to some degree. The state offered a limited number of stickers to hybrid cars that allows them access to the carpool lanes with a single driver. The stickers were quickly exhausted and now cars that have the sticker sell at a significant premium. (see http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1021405_california-hov-lane-stickers-for-hybrids-worth-1200-to-1500 http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1021405_california-hov-l...) The value of these stickers has probably declined significantly since that article was written, as the stickers are only valid until July 1, 2011. A few years ago, my boss (CEO) at my last company bought a Prius at a premium for this reason so he could use the carpool lanes during rush hour. The populist/progressive in me thinks that it isn't "fair" that the rich can pay for faster commutes, but the truth is that he probably created many times more wealth than the several thousand dollar sticker premium by having an extra 30-60 minutes of productive work every day.
100k 16y ago
This is pretty much the idea behind congestion charges (for example in London). New York City tried to institute them, but the State Assembly stopped them (basically suburban interests trumped city interests). It would have made a big difference in commute times by lowering traffic congestion and the nice thing is that those that benefit pay.
- MrFoof 16y ago
  There is one fundamental issue to congestion charges however: You are not paying for the ability to use privileged roads, you're paying to use all roads, because under a congestion charge, all roads are considered a privilege. Carpool lanes work better in this regard. For example, on 93N heading into Boston, you can use 93N for free. If you have at least 2 people in the car (and I think hybrids and EVs are allowed as well), you can use the carpool lane. However, if you were almost always by yourself, but could pay $2000/year to get a placard to drive in the carpool lane, people would certainly pay it. Motorists without passengers are not required to pay to drive on 93N, however any motorist willing to pay ~$8/workday for the convenience therefore has the option -- that may even exclude the rich, just those who live far enough away from Boston and commuter rail stations where they need the drive (or feel the need to) and are willing to pay for a shorter commute time. Actually, the more I think about this, the more I like it. If you are actively working towards eliminating congestion by carpooling, you still get it gratis. If you're reducing emissions by driving an EV or Hybrid, you get it gratis until that allowance sunsets, because you're making a positive impact with your vehicle choice. Yet if you're willing to just pay... hey, we'll let you in too, so that money can go towards improving something. I like this. I'm trying to find how anyone loses with this idea, because you can still use the four lanes on 93 like anyone else does for free.

tomjen3 16y ago

Yeah, thats the thing - I didn't get why his solution was "bad" in that case.

zck 16y ago
Possibly so he doesn't have to waste time defending it; the argument will center on whether this kind of thing is a good idea, not whether this specific idea is good.

ry0ohki 16y ago

These were kind of proposed in DC (I think they may actually exist in San Diego or somewhere), where you pay a variable rate to use the carpool lanes based on demand. So during rush hour it would cost $6 and 11am on a saturday it would cost $.50. People didn't like the idea because they would be "Lexus lanes" giving special privileges to the rich. Scott Adams is right that if we really want to solve the budge problems we may need to accept that the people who can help the most may need some sort of special privileges.

Alex3917 16y ago
"we may need to accept that the people who can help the most may need some sort of special privileges." Because no-bid contracts, not going to jail when they commit crimes, real education for their kids, not living in crime zones, food that isn't poison, actual health care, living an extra three years, etc. aren't enough already.
- viraptor 16y ago
  To some extent... no, they aren't. They're the status quo. If you change nothing, the rich will still get them. That was the big point really. If you want to share some of their money, propose something else in exchange. It will only change during an actual complete crash of the value of money. And even then it's not guaranteed, because they will still have access to an extensive network of influential people, while "we" won't.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  no bid contracts, not going to jail when they commit crimes I'd speculate that the vast majority of these benefits are given to government workers, not to the rich. Any government worker with a union has a no-bid contract (it's illegal for competitors to underbid him), and you can find plenty of videos on youtube of cops committing crimes they get away with [1]. [1] Occasionally they are disciplined with a paid vacation.
nitrogen 16y ago
Utah recently installed variable-toll express lanes. It seems to me they make overall congestion worse by creating traffic jams at the entrances/exits to these lanes.

jroid 16y ago

Why not charge a toll depending on traffic ? As the traffic increases, the toll increases (and vice versa), which will keep the lane fast moving. Not my idea, someone has already implemented this.

georgecmu 16y ago

I always thought that institutionalized speeding would be very successful both in terms of additional revenues and time saved. Right now highway speed limits are set to a sort of common denominator: safest for the worst car and driver on the road. But if you're driving a modern, well-maintained car and are adequately trained, there's no evidence that you'd be unsafe driving 20 mph over the speed limit. So, why not for an extra, non-nominal, fee, raise speed limits on interstate highways to qualified drivers? Of course they'd have to take additional driving lessons, pass extra driving tests to extend their privilege every year, and drive only approved cars, i.e. no 1996 Ford Explorers need apply.

ams6110 16y ago
The thing that makes speeding unsafe (up to a point) is not so much the speed itself but the delta between the slowest and fastest cars on the road.
- georgecmu 16y ago
  Correct, except I would say "in the lane" rather than "on the road". Congestion would limit the speed naturally, but existing regulations such as 'slower vehicles stay in right lane' etc would actually have to be enforced for this to work.
  - jmaygarden 16y ago
    I'd pay an extra 1% if they would just get all the slow folks out of the passing lanes!!!

z2amiller 16y ago

This already exists in California to some degree. The state offered a limited number of stickers to hybrid cars that allows them access to the carpool lanes with a single driver. The stickers were quickly exhausted and now cars that have the sticker sell at a significant premium. (see http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1021405_california-hov-lane-stickers-for-hybrids-worth-1200-to-1500 http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1021405_california-hov-l...) The value of these stickers has probably declined significantly since that article was written, as the stickers are only valid until July 1, 2011. A few years ago, my boss (CEO) at my last company bought a Prius at a premium for this reason so he could use the carpool lanes during rush hour. The populist/progressive in me thinks that it isn't "fair" that the rich can pay for faster commutes, but the truth is that he probably created many times more wealth than the several thousand dollar sticker premium by having an extra 30-60 minutes of productive work every day.

100k 16y ago

This is pretty much the idea behind congestion charges (for example in London). New York City tried to institute them, but the State Assembly stopped them (basically suburban interests trumped city interests). It would have made a big difference in commute times by lowering traffic congestion and the nice thing is that those that benefit pay.

MrFoof 16y ago
There is one fundamental issue to congestion charges however: You are not paying for the ability to use privileged roads, you're paying to use all roads, because under a congestion charge, all roads are considered a privilege. Carpool lanes work better in this regard. For example, on 93N heading into Boston, you can use 93N for free. If you have at least 2 people in the car (and I think hybrids and EVs are allowed as well), you can use the carpool lane. However, if you were almost always by yourself, but could pay $2000/year to get a placard to drive in the carpool lane, people would certainly pay it. Motorists without passengers are not required to pay to drive on 93N, however any motorist willing to pay ~$8/workday for the convenience therefore has the option -- that may even exclude the rich, just those who live far enough away from Boston and commuter rail stations where they need the drive (or feel the need to) and are willing to pay for a shorter commute time. Actually, the more I think about this, the more I like it. If you are actively working towards eliminating congestion by carpooling, you still get it gratis. If you're reducing emissions by driving an EV or Hybrid, you get it gratis until that allowance sunsets, because you're making a positive impact with your vehicle choice. Yet if you're willing to just pay... hey, we'll let you in too, so that money can go towards improving something. I like this. I'm trying to find how anyone loses with this idea, because you can still use the four lanes on 93 like anyone else does for free.