3 ms·

That's not practically the case though. Road usage costs gas, including taxes, and maintenance.

jacobush 6y ago
Depending on where you live, you might already eat most the car associated costs as part of living. EVs are only going to make it worse, with higher fixed costs and lower marginal.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  A complete tangent, but when I read "you might already eat most the car" I mentally put a full stop here and realized that this is true to an extent: if you live close to a place with large traffic, you're quite literally eating (or at least breathing in) cars, in the form of tire and brake dust. So that's another, non-monetary, cost of living you have to pay.
wahern 6y ago
Sure, and going to Mars has its own costs, like cancer risk or forgoing a trip to Disney Land, even if a ticket is free. The point is that to the extent people don't have to internalize the actual cost of the product or service, demand will be higher. And this difference is what's being referred to as induced demand in the context transportation policy. None of this means that new infrastructure can't create a richer, more productive environment.[1] Obviously the real world is more complex. But the pathological phenomena of induced demand in especially clear and substantial for highway construction because of the process for choosing, designing, and budgeting projects. And to the extent the actual costs are born by the individuals voting for and using a new highway, the linkage is particularly weak and distant and so the costs don't moderate the demand as should normally happen in well-functioning markets. When you try to bring them closer, say through tolling, people become apoplectic; "That's what my taxes are paying for!", etc, ignorant of the point that costs don't moderate consumption very well unless the relationship is clear and obvious--usually the more immediate, the better. [1] Though that's why the article criticizes reliance on modeling, because at the end of the day the choice is less about planning for an inevitable future than picking & choosing among potential futures, each with costs & benefits that are difficult to quantify independent of policy goals--equity, sustainability, mobility, etc.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > And this difference is what's being referred to as induced demand in the context transportation policy. No it isn't. The theory is used for the proposition that you can't satisfy the whole demand because adding capacity creates more demand. But that's plainly false. Even at a very low price there isn't unlimited demand, so there is an amount of capacity that can satisfy the demand. Moreover, fuel taxes do actually pay for a large fraction of road costs, generally something like half. That means you get more demand than you would with a pro rata allocation, but that's what you want, because an even larger portion of the road cost is fixed cost, and charging more than incremental cost results in inefficient resource utilization. You paid for the road, it's not at full capacity and yet you're discouraging productive use of it.
  - emn13 6y ago
    Fuel taxes don't cover pollution related costs; they certainly don't additionally also cover road costs and indirect costs to the neighborhood. Infrastructure is funded as an investment for similarly indirect gains. Comparing physical construction and maintenance costs to fuel taxes is excluding 99% of the costs and benefits; it's misleading comparison.

Depending on where you live, you might already eat most the car associated costs as part of living. EVs are only going to make it worse, with higher fixed costs and lower marginal.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
A complete tangent, but when I read "you might already eat most the car" I mentally put a full stop here and realized that this is true to an extent: if you live close to a place with large traffic, you're quite literally eating (or at least breathing in) cars, in the form of tire and brake dust. So that's another, non-monetary, cost of living you have to pay.

wahern 6y ago

Sure, and going to Mars has its own costs, like cancer risk or forgoing a trip to Disney Land, even if a ticket is free. The point is that to the extent people don't have to internalize the actual cost of the product or service, demand will be higher. And this difference is what's being referred to as induced demand in the context transportation policy. None of this means that new infrastructure can't create a richer, more productive environment.[1] Obviously the real world is more complex. But the pathological phenomena of induced demand in especially clear and substantial for highway construction because of the process for choosing, designing, and budgeting projects. And to the extent the actual costs are born by the individuals voting for and using a new highway, the linkage is particularly weak and distant and so the costs don't moderate the demand as should normally happen in well-functioning markets. When you try to bring them closer, say through tolling, people become apoplectic; "That's what my taxes are paying for!", etc, ignorant of the point that costs don't moderate consumption very well unless the relationship is clear and obvious--usually the more immediate, the better. [1] Though that's why the article criticizes reliance on modeling, because at the end of the day the choice is less about planning for an inevitable future than picking & choosing among potential futures, each with costs & benefits that are difficult to quantify independent of policy goals--equity, sustainability, mobility, etc.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> And this difference is what's being referred to as induced demand in the context transportation policy. No it isn't. The theory is used for the proposition that you can't satisfy the whole demand because adding capacity creates more demand. But that's plainly false. Even at a very low price there isn't unlimited demand, so there is an amount of capacity that can satisfy the demand. Moreover, fuel taxes do actually pay for a large fraction of road costs, generally something like half. That means you get more demand than you would with a pro rata allocation, but that's what you want, because an even larger portion of the road cost is fixed cost, and charging more than incremental cost results in inefficient resource utilization. You paid for the road, it's not at full capacity and yet you're discouraging productive use of it.
- emn13 6y ago
  Fuel taxes don't cover pollution related costs; they certainly don't additionally also cover road costs and indirect costs to the neighborhood. Infrastructure is funded as an investment for similarly indirect gains. Comparing physical construction and maintenance costs to fuel taxes is excluding 99% of the costs and benefits; it's misleading comparison.