4 ms·

Freeway lanes fill up because drivers don't pay to use them. Free resources are always over consumed. As long as Electricity is metered and billed, it will not

Freeway lanes fill up because drivers don't pay to use them. Free resources are always over consumed. As long as Electricity is metered and billed, it will not have the same problem.

theultdev 3y ago
You've never been stuck in traffic on a toll road? And you do pay to use Freeway lanes, through vehicle registration fees and gas taxes.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  Vehicle and gas taxes cost the same when driving on an empty road at 2am and a rush hour LA freeway. They're completely irrelevant for this discussion.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    well no, you burn more gas sitting in rush hour than driving on an empty road, thus you pay more taxes. it was mainly a side point though that it's not free, every legal driver has prepaid via vehicle registration AND pays on usage basis via a gas tax. my main refute was toll roads get just as congested.
    - BurningFrog 3y ago
      OK, we have to take a step further into microeconomic theory. For demand to match supply, it's not enough to charge any non zero price. If cell phones cost nothing, they will always be sold out. If they cost $1, they will also always be sold out. This does not disprove microeconomic theory! With some experimentation you can find the "equilibrium price", where supply meets demand, and you can always find a phone to buy. For road pricing, it's true that the driver pays a bit extra for gas in rush hour traffic. But if it's just going from 1% to 2% of the equilibrium price, there will still be gridlock. Toll roads are a better cause for you, but even if thery try to set equilibrium prices, that is pretty hard, since conditions vary every 10 minutes. If prices are set politically, it's bad for reelection to set the prices high enough. If you do succeed in setting equilibrium road prices - and to be fair, I'm not aware of anywhere that has been done, which weakens my point - we would see freeways that today crawl at 15 mph go at full speed 65 mph traffic 24/7, which - and this is the huge payoff - means vastly more cars could travel on them, and they'd be much more useful than today.
blululu 3y ago
This history of resource consumption would suggest otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox ~160 years ago, Jevons noted that the market for coal had the inverse effect. Adding cheaper and more efficient production capabilities just increased consumption.
- kiba 3y ago
  It's lazy to assume that Jevon's Paradox always hold true.
kiba 3y ago
Free lanes fill up in part because cars simply take a lot of space in both total volume of the vehicle and the volume needed to maneuver safely. If you only have a single driver in a normally five seated car, that's additional inefficiency on top. Meanwhile, a human walking barely take up any space compared to a car.
- theultdev 3y ago
  You'd find the support system for humans walking the same distance would take up more space than cars. Strange to compare two completely different modes of transportation isolating one variable.
  - kiba 3y ago
    It would be more efficient to reconfigure our urban space to be more human scale. This required less distance in walking and less dependence on cars.
    - theultdev 3y ago
      Cities/states can't even complete a public transportation project without embezzling the money. (see CHSR) You also have the problem of stocking. You still need roads for trucks to supply stores. Then there's the need of roads to connect cities and towns. I can walk end to end in my town, but I still need to be able to drive to a specific spot incase of an emergency or logistical errand like moving or vacationing. Even simple things like buying kitty litter would be a hassle without a car. I'd go with a horse then if no car, which I occasionally see actually. Then a bike with a wagon or something. Slowly regressing in mobility, freedom, and tech. The urban planning no cars thing really makes no sense once you realize your bubble is supported by the vast road network the US has.
complianceowl 3y ago
I'm pretty sure our taxes have paid for those lanes many times over. It's time to take a critical thinking course. Not to mention that metering and billing someone's driving would be a gargantuan incursion on a human being's freedom of movement -- something so incredibly inherent in who we are. Let me guess: you think EVs will save the planet -- all the while ignoring most of the electricity that powers them is not cleanly generated. My goodness...
- kiba 3y ago
  Not to mention that metering and billing someone's driving would be a gargantuan incursion on a human being's freedom of movement -- something so incredibly inherent in who we are. Freedom of movement does not requires using cars for everything. Let me guess: you think EVs will save the planet -- all the while ignoring most of the electricity that powers them is not cleanly generated. My goodness... They are probably cleaner anyway even when the source is from a coal power plant. However, they're only really one solution in our arsenal. We would be better off in using more public transit.

Freeway lanes fill up because drivers don't pay to use them. Free resources are always over consumed. As long as Electricity is metered and billed, it will not have the same problem.

theultdev 3y ago

You've never been stuck in traffic on a toll road? And you do pay to use Freeway lanes, through vehicle registration fees and gas taxes.

BurningFrog 3y ago
Vehicle and gas taxes cost the same when driving on an empty road at 2am and a rush hour LA freeway. They're completely irrelevant for this discussion.
- theultdev 3y ago
  well no, you burn more gas sitting in rush hour than driving on an empty road, thus you pay more taxes. it was mainly a side point though that it's not free, every legal driver has prepaid via vehicle registration AND pays on usage basis via a gas tax. my main refute was toll roads get just as congested.
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    OK, we have to take a step further into microeconomic theory. For demand to match supply, it's not enough to charge any non zero price. If cell phones cost nothing, they will always be sold out. If they cost $1, they will also always be sold out. This does not disprove microeconomic theory! With some experimentation you can find the "equilibrium price", where supply meets demand, and you can always find a phone to buy. For road pricing, it's true that the driver pays a bit extra for gas in rush hour traffic. But if it's just going from 1% to 2% of the equilibrium price, there will still be gridlock. Toll roads are a better cause for you, but even if thery try to set equilibrium prices, that is pretty hard, since conditions vary every 10 minutes. If prices are set politically, it's bad for reelection to set the prices high enough. If you do succeed in setting equilibrium road prices - and to be fair, I'm not aware of anywhere that has been done, which weakens my point - we would see freeways that today crawl at 15 mph go at full speed 65 mph traffic 24/7, which - and this is the huge payoff - means vastly more cars could travel on them, and they'd be much more useful than today.

blululu 3y ago

This history of resource consumption would suggest otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox ~160 years ago, Jevons noted that the market for coal had the inverse effect. Adding cheaper and more efficient production capabilities just increased consumption.

kiba 3y ago
It's lazy to assume that Jevon's Paradox always hold true.

kiba 3y ago

Free lanes fill up in part because cars simply take a lot of space in both total volume of the vehicle and the volume needed to maneuver safely. If you only have a single driver in a normally five seated car, that's additional inefficiency on top. Meanwhile, a human walking barely take up any space compared to a car.

theultdev 3y ago
You'd find the support system for humans walking the same distance would take up more space than cars. Strange to compare two completely different modes of transportation isolating one variable.
- kiba 3y ago
  It would be more efficient to reconfigure our urban space to be more human scale. This required less distance in walking and less dependence on cars.
  - theultdev 3y ago
    Cities/states can't even complete a public transportation project without embezzling the money. (see CHSR) You also have the problem of stocking. You still need roads for trucks to supply stores. Then there's the need of roads to connect cities and towns. I can walk end to end in my town, but I still need to be able to drive to a specific spot incase of an emergency or logistical errand like moving or vacationing. Even simple things like buying kitty litter would be a hassle without a car. I'd go with a horse then if no car, which I occasionally see actually. Then a bike with a wagon or something. Slowly regressing in mobility, freedom, and tech. The urban planning no cars thing really makes no sense once you realize your bubble is supported by the vast road network the US has.

complianceowl 3y ago

I'm pretty sure our taxes have paid for those lanes many times over. It's time to take a critical thinking course. Not to mention that metering and billing someone's driving would be a gargantuan incursion on a human being's freedom of movement -- something so incredibly inherent in who we are. Let me guess: you think EVs will save the planet -- all the while ignoring most of the electricity that powers them is not cleanly generated. My goodness...

kiba 3y ago
Not to mention that metering and billing someone's driving would be a gargantuan incursion on a human being's freedom of movement -- something so incredibly inherent in who we are. Freedom of movement does not requires using cars for everything. Let me guess: you think EVs will save the planet -- all the while ignoring most of the electricity that powers them is not cleanly generated. My goodness... They are probably cleaner anyway even when the source is from a coal power plant. However, they're only really one solution in our arsenal. We would be better off in using more public transit.