5 ms·

I think the parent poster is talking about fees that are proportional to congestion, to disincentivize driving during rush hour.

by ufo 3y ago

mike_d 3y ago
The Bay Area does this with carpool lanes. The electronic billboard says $12 and you see a nonstop stream of Tesla, BMW, Mercedes, etc. and tech company busses. All it does is force the poor to sit in traffic while some lanes are reserved for people to whom $12 is inconsequential. I fail to see how applying this same logic to an entire road makes it any better.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  The benefit comes when prices reach the level where traffic flows at full speed. This increases the traffic throughput by maybe 5x, which makes the road much more useful.
  - mike_d 3y ago
    > The benefit comes when prices reach the level where traffic flows at full speed. How then does your gardener get his truck to your house? Your DoorDash driver? The elderly woman on a fixed income who needs to get to her doctors appointment? Roads cannot be the domain of the rich. (Also please don't pretend that public transport is even remotely viable in the US)
    - BurningFrog 3y ago
      You assume it will be very expensive. I don't think so, but we'd have to implement it to know the levels. For many errands, people can avoid rush hours, which may not even need road pricing. I'll note that all your "poor" examples own a car.
      - mike_d 3y ago
        > I'll note that all your "poor" examples own a car. This is actually a key point many city dwelling anti-car advocates completely miss. The poor do depend heavily on cars because they are pushed to the outskirts where they can afford housing but still have to commute to the cities where the jobs are. When I lived outside the Bay Area my car cost me less than what some people here spend on their bikes.
    - acdha 3y ago
      > How then does your gardener get his truck to your house? Your DoorDash driver? The elderly woman on a fixed income who needs to get to her doctors appointment? The whole idea is to reduce peak demand. Your gardener doesn’t need to go downtown at the same time as office workers, so they are unlikely to be affected since they’re going to your house rather than your office and they can show up at 10am. Similarly, getting breakfast from DoorDash across town is not a human right - you can order closer to home or pay market rate for use of a couple hundred feet of public space to haul your burrito.
- MBCook 3y ago
  That just tells me the price is wrong.
MBCook 3y ago
Right. The problem with a gas tax is you pay the same driving on a rural road with no one else as driving on a congested highway during rush hour. Tolls for entering/leaving the city at certain times (or outright bans for some percentage of cars per day) is more effective.

I think the parent poster is talking about fees that are proportional to congestion, to disincentivize driving during rush hour.

by ufo 3y ago

I think the parent poster is talking about fees that are proportional to congestion, to disincentivize driving during rush hour.

mike_d 3y ago

The Bay Area does this with carpool lanes. The electronic billboard says $12 and you see a nonstop stream of Tesla, BMW, Mercedes, etc. and tech company busses. All it does is force the poor to sit in traffic while some lanes are reserved for people to whom $12 is inconsequential. I fail to see how applying this same logic to an entire road makes it any better.

BurningFrog 3y ago
The benefit comes when prices reach the level where traffic flows at full speed. This increases the traffic throughput by maybe 5x, which makes the road much more useful.
- mike_d 3y ago
  > The benefit comes when prices reach the level where traffic flows at full speed. How then does your gardener get his truck to your house? Your DoorDash driver? The elderly woman on a fixed income who needs to get to her doctors appointment? Roads cannot be the domain of the rich. (Also please don't pretend that public transport is even remotely viable in the US)
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    You assume it will be very expensive. I don't think so, but we'd have to implement it to know the levels. For many errands, people can avoid rush hours, which may not even need road pricing. I'll note that all your "poor" examples own a car.
    - mike_d 3y ago
      > I'll note that all your "poor" examples own a car. This is actually a key point many city dwelling anti-car advocates completely miss. The poor do depend heavily on cars because they are pushed to the outskirts where they can afford housing but still have to commute to the cities where the jobs are. When I lived outside the Bay Area my car cost me less than what some people here spend on their bikes.
  - acdha 3y ago
    > How then does your gardener get his truck to your house? Your DoorDash driver? The elderly woman on a fixed income who needs to get to her doctors appointment? The whole idea is to reduce peak demand. Your gardener doesn’t need to go downtown at the same time as office workers, so they are unlikely to be affected since they’re going to your house rather than your office and they can show up at 10am. Similarly, getting breakfast from DoorDash across town is not a human right - you can order closer to home or pay market rate for use of a couple hundred feet of public space to haul your burrito.
MBCook 3y ago
That just tells me the price is wrong.

MBCook 3y ago

Right. The problem with a gas tax is you pay the same driving on a rural road with no one else as driving on a congested highway during rush hour. Tolls for entering/leaving the city at certain times (or outright bans for some percentage of cars per day) is more effective.