4 ms·

As the discussion of equity is always tied to congestion pricing, here is a study from RAND titled Equity and Congestion Pricing [pdf]. The Summary at the begin

As the discussion of equity is always tied to congestion pricing, here is a study from RAND titled Equity and Congestion Pricing [pdf]. The Summary at the beginning covers most of the findings. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR680.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports... > First, depending on how congestion pricing is implemented, it can be either regressive or progressive. This depends in large part on how toll revenues are used. For instance, if regions spend revenues in ways that benefit low-income individuals, congestion pricing is more likely to be progressive. However, if regions use revenues in a way that benefits all individuals equally, congestion pricing may be, overall, regressive. This is the strongest finding in the economic literature. > Second, even when low-income and other transportation-disadvantaged groups benefit as a whole from congestion pricing, it is very likely that some individuals will still be worse off. > Third, for all forms of congestion pricing (but more for some than for others), the distri- bution of residents and job opportunities (not to mention shopping, schools, places of worship, and other important destinations) has a large impact on the equity implications. > Fourth, high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, the most common form of congestion pricing in the United States, tend to raise fewer equity concerns among motorists, since they provide drivers with an additional choice of using a set of priced lanes while allowing them to continue using parallel, free lanes if they prefer. > Fifth, while congestion pricing has been shown to reduce emissions in general, there is scant evidence showing that congestion pricing can specifically reduce negative environmental consequences for neighborhoods disproportionately affected by emissions. > Given the risk of negative impacts to low-income and other groups under congestion pric- ing, we looked at suggested ways to diminish these impacts. Two mechanisms are in common use: (1) revenue redistribution and (2) discounts and exemptions.

bombcar 4y ago
The pricing itself is regressive or progressive regardless of how the revenue is spent - it can just compound the issue if it is not spent well. Unless there is some sort of exemption it effectively becomes “ban poors from cars” - which may entirely be the desired result.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  Poor people already mostly can’t afford cars. Only about 25% of people in the bottom 10% of income have a car. If we want to help poor people we should just give them money rather than indirect subsidies that mainly favor wealthier people with cars.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Agreed - but if you increase that to people from a household with a car, I bet the number increases. And if people are getting dropped off at work and later picked up, they’ll get dinged twice. Unless the city was really built around transit (and not just once developed in a hub and spoke like so many cities) it’s hard to beat a car door to door. That’s what we should be focusing on fixing (things like inter borough travel in NYC). Massive congestion charges might be part of that, however.
    - namibj 4y ago
      I'd propose a somewhat automatic congestion toll: the toll for a segment of road adapts to keep (assuming only car traffic; extension makes it less trivial but by no means impossible) the road just about empty enough to let everyone drive at the design speed (AFAIK 90 mph for most of the US interstate network). The effect is that the mechanism prevents significant latency degradation from demand. While it's not necessarily possible to go that far over night, looking at how much of the traffic/congestion is from cars, and how many occupants they have, should allow to calculate what reduction perfect car pooling (with, say, 4 people per car) would allow, and at what speed that reduced number of cars could drive (without tailgating). Then, add some safety margin and set that reduced speed as the target for the auto-toll-pricing. If car pooling physically can't fix the congestion, it'd take a bit for the problematic roads to get enough (mini)bus service to enable the full design speed. WFH isn't the solution, and proper mass transit takes a while (5-10 years) to build even if you're in a hurry.

bombcar 4y ago

The pricing itself is regressive or progressive regardless of how the revenue is spent - it can just compound the issue if it is not spent well. Unless there is some sort of exemption it effectively becomes “ban poors from cars” - which may entirely be the desired result.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
Poor people already mostly can’t afford cars. Only about 25% of people in the bottom 10% of income have a car. If we want to help poor people we should just give them money rather than indirect subsidies that mainly favor wealthier people with cars.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Agreed - but if you increase that to people from a household with a car, I bet the number increases. And if people are getting dropped off at work and later picked up, they’ll get dinged twice. Unless the city was really built around transit (and not just once developed in a hub and spoke like so many cities) it’s hard to beat a car door to door. That’s what we should be focusing on fixing (things like inter borough travel in NYC). Massive congestion charges might be part of that, however.
  - namibj 4y ago
    I'd propose a somewhat automatic congestion toll: the toll for a segment of road adapts to keep (assuming only car traffic; extension makes it less trivial but by no means impossible) the road just about empty enough to let everyone drive at the design speed (AFAIK 90 mph for most of the US interstate network). The effect is that the mechanism prevents significant latency degradation from demand. While it's not necessarily possible to go that far over night, looking at how much of the traffic/congestion is from cars, and how many occupants they have, should allow to calculate what reduction perfect car pooling (with, say, 4 people per car) would allow, and at what speed that reduced number of cars could drive (without tailgating). Then, add some safety margin and set that reduced speed as the target for the auto-toll-pricing. If car pooling physically can't fix the congestion, it'd take a bit for the problematic roads to get enough (mini)bus service to enable the full design speed. WFH isn't the solution, and proper mass transit takes a while (5-10 years) to build even if you're in a hurry.