8 ms·

There is an easy solution: make roads pay-per-use with price based on the utilization. This will quickly reshape cities and change public transit since the pric

by vl 7y ago

There is an easy solution: make roads pay-per-use with price based on the utilization. This will quickly reshape cities and change public transit since the price will be transparent to everyone. More businesses would move out creating better, more evenly developed territories.

wtn 7y ago
That would require vehicle tracking, and people in the US don't want that. Fuel taxes only work for vehicles that use internal combustion engines. A tire tax is a possible vehicle-neutral option.
- kevingadd 7y ago
  You'd still need some way to map the tire tax to location of utilization, though. There's no real point in applying a congestion charge to people living in rural areas w/no access to public transit who have to drive to work, it won't have any beneficial impact. Regressive taxation, sort of like sales taxes.
- vl 7y ago
  In any large US city you need an electronic toll pass for bridges and etc. or get billed by license plate. So tracking is in place already.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/trafficlayer https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/... It’s my understanding Tesla uses this for traffic data for the in vehicle UX.
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  Electric and ICE both pay the same road tolls/tax. Carbon tax is orthogonal.
- xzzx77 7y ago
  A tire tax would incentivize people to drive on worn tires longer.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  The tracking already happens via numerous license plate readers, especially if the road is already tolled.
kevingadd 7y ago
Raising the cost to drive isn't going to make people stop driving unless they have good alternatives, you're just making their life more expensive. Most of the cars on the road are people going somewhere they need to go. Transit in the SF bay is pretty expensive and also not super viable for getting around, at least currently. It's a short walk to a local Caltrain station for me and I can take it almost directly to my official desk in San Francisco, but doing so takes ~2hrs and costs me ~$10 one-way. Barely competitive (cost-wise) with driving a car and considerably slower than driving. Time is money, so the idea of throwing away 2 hrs/day of my life and not saving money vs driving is not especially compelling and I can't blame people w/2-3 jobs for hopping in their car if it's the best choice. (I work from home instead, but most people don't have that option) I think the (one-off) example from the article is interesting because it shows that if you lower transit costs, usage does go up and traffic improves. Improved traffic means that the people who do drive will be spending less time on the road, which means burning less gas - less money spent on gas and less climate impact. Incidentally we do have some toll roads in the area, which I guess does have your intended effect because nobody wants to use them? They just use other roads instead. We can certainly reshape cities, but "quickly" in that context would be decades, and in that time period people will be miserable and will end up homeless or worse.
- vl 7y ago
  Transparent cost of driving will promote development of alternatives, change real estate prices and influence working/living arrangements. Long term result will be better public transit, better cities, business situated at better locations. Right now this cost indirectly paid by everyone, greatly reducing quality of life. Once it’s direct, it’s way easier for market to optimize around it.
- susijdjdjxa 7y ago
  Two hours is a very long Caltrain, do you live in Gilroy or something?
  - deathanatos 7y ago
    He might be comparing door-to-door, which is what you really should be doing if you want an apples-to-apples comparison. Just counting the scheduled time means you're ignoring delays (Caltrain suffers delays on a regular basis), wait time (Caltrain has scheduled waits of up to 40 minutes even during rush hour².), and whatever driving/walking/biking you need on the last mile either side. E.g., catching the 7:28a gets you to SF at 8:54a¹, for a train time of 1h 26m. Wait is between 0 and 22 minutes, so let's use the average of 11m: 1h 37m. 10 minute walk/bike either side, and it's 1h 57m. That ride costs $298.50/mo, or about $7.50 one-way. ¹if you transfer to the bullet. If you don't, add 6 minutes. ²e.g., 7:25a at Mountain View, NB. The next fastest train to SF departs at 8:05a. The 7:46a train departs sooner, but arrives 6 minutes after the 8:05a.
dekhn 7y ago
HOV lanes are being converted to HOV/toll lanes on 101 and 237 as we speak. https://padailypost.com/2019/11/12/highway-101-toll-will-be-as-high-as-3-a-mile/ https://padailypost.com/2019/11/12/highway-101-toll-will-be-... Not all lanes will be HOV/toll.
- susijdjdjxa 7y ago
  Currently there is a very high rate of HOV lane violations. I wonder if they’ll enforce it more when it becomes a toll lane too.

by vl 7y ago

wtn 7y ago

That would require vehicle tracking, and people in the US don't want that. Fuel taxes only work for vehicles that use internal combustion engines. A tire tax is a possible vehicle-neutral option.

kevingadd 7y ago
You'd still need some way to map the tire tax to location of utilization, though. There's no real point in applying a congestion charge to people living in rural areas w/no access to public transit who have to drive to work, it won't have any beneficial impact. Regressive taxation, sort of like sales taxes.
vl 7y ago
In any large US city you need an electronic toll pass for bridges and etc. or get billed by license plate. So tracking is in place already.
toomuchtodo 7y ago
https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/trafficlayer https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/... It’s my understanding Tesla uses this for traffic data for the in vehicle UX.
Ericson2314 7y ago
Electric and ICE both pay the same road tolls/tax. Carbon tax is orthogonal.
xzzx77 7y ago
A tire tax would incentivize people to drive on worn tires longer.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
The tracking already happens via numerous license plate readers, especially if the road is already tolled.

kevingadd 7y ago

Raising the cost to drive isn't going to make people stop driving unless they have good alternatives, you're just making their life more expensive. Most of the cars on the road are people going somewhere they need to go. Transit in the SF bay is pretty expensive and also not super viable for getting around, at least currently. It's a short walk to a local Caltrain station for me and I can take it almost directly to my official desk in San Francisco, but doing so takes ~2hrs and costs me ~$10 one-way. Barely competitive (cost-wise) with driving a car and considerably slower than driving. Time is money, so the idea of throwing away 2 hrs/day of my life and not saving money vs driving is not especially compelling and I can't blame people w/2-3 jobs for hopping in their car if it's the best choice. (I work from home instead, but most people don't have that option) I think the (one-off) example from the article is interesting because it shows that if you lower transit costs, usage does go up and traffic improves. Improved traffic means that the people who do drive will be spending less time on the road, which means burning less gas - less money spent on gas and less climate impact. Incidentally we do have some toll roads in the area, which I guess does have your intended effect because nobody wants to use them? They just use other roads instead. We can certainly reshape cities, but "quickly" in that context would be decades, and in that time period people will be miserable and will end up homeless or worse.

vl 7y ago
Transparent cost of driving will promote development of alternatives, change real estate prices and influence working/living arrangements. Long term result will be better public transit, better cities, business situated at better locations. Right now this cost indirectly paid by everyone, greatly reducing quality of life. Once it’s direct, it’s way easier for market to optimize around it.
susijdjdjxa 7y ago
Two hours is a very long Caltrain, do you live in Gilroy or something?
- deathanatos 7y ago
  He might be comparing door-to-door, which is what you really should be doing if you want an apples-to-apples comparison. Just counting the scheduled time means you're ignoring delays (Caltrain suffers delays on a regular basis), wait time (Caltrain has scheduled waits of up to 40 minutes even during rush hour².), and whatever driving/walking/biking you need on the last mile either side. E.g., catching the 7:28a gets you to SF at 8:54a¹, for a train time of 1h 26m. Wait is between 0 and 22 minutes, so let's use the average of 11m: 1h 37m. 10 minute walk/bike either side, and it's 1h 57m. That ride costs $298.50/mo, or about $7.50 one-way. ¹if you transfer to the bullet. If you don't, add 6 minutes. ²e.g., 7:25a at Mountain View, NB. The next fastest train to SF departs at 8:05a. The 7:46a train departs sooner, but arrives 6 minutes after the 8:05a.

dekhn 7y ago

HOV lanes are being converted to HOV/toll lanes on 101 and 237 as we speak. https://padailypost.com/2019/11/12/highway-101-toll-will-be-as-high-as-3-a-mile/ https://padailypost.com/2019/11/12/highway-101-toll-will-be-... Not all lanes will be HOV/toll.

susijdjdjxa 7y ago
Currently there is a very high rate of HOV lane violations. I wonder if they’ll enforce it more when it becomes a toll lane too.