5 ms·

>This means raising the price of driving on a road when demand is high. During rush hour, drivers would have to pay a fee to use the most congested roads. Driv

by nawitus 12y ago

>This means raising the price of driving on a road when demand is high. During rush hour, drivers would have to pay a fee to use the most congested roads. Drivers already pay for the cost in lost time. It's a 'natural' market. The main problem with this article is the idea that the goal in traffic policy is to reduce congenstion. No, it should be to maximize utility. Sure, if you reduce roads, add congenstion charges then people will find alternatives to cars. That doesn't imply that utility is increased. Public transportation is typically worse than using a private car. You can't decide when to leave, you pretty much need to plan your trips around public transportation. They don't take you directly from A to B etc. Public transportation becomes effective only when population density becomes high enough.

seizethecheese 12y ago
'Drivers already pay the cost in lost time.' Yes, but not all of the cost. If each additional car adds 10 seconds to commutes, each driver will only pay a pittance more for her decision to hit the road. Meanwhile they are imposing large costs of 10 seconds * each driver on the road. Look up the economics of externalities again and you'll see that an additional congestion charge is well founded in theory.
- kvb 12y ago
  I'm curious why this is being downvoted. Isn't congestion a textbook externality?
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Assume 100 drivers each cause 10 seconds of slowdown. Assume every driver is equally at fault. Each driver is causing 1000 person-seconds of slowdown. Each driver is receiving 1000 person-seconds of slowdown. Seems fair to me, and each driver is paying their exact cost. It's wrong to look at the externalities drivers output and ignore the externalities drivers input.
    - kvb 12y ago
      No, you have to look at the margin. The other 99 people are already there, and you have to choose whether or not to drive; you slow down everyone after you, but you don't slow yourself down.
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        Everyone before you chose to inconvenience all comers before and after. In a situation like this, especially because it's iterated every day, these people are clearly choosing to slow, and be slowed by, everyone coming after them. Being on the road first doesn't give you moral superiority. In some situations the margin of newcomers is a fair way to look at it. But with drivers on the road, these people are all getting up in the morning and choosing to use this road at the same time. It is a continuous reaffirmation, day by day, that this is the path they want, no matter who they slow down, and they accept being slowed in return.
    - SilasX 12y ago
      You need to count the people who would like to use the road, but must choose their next-best option because the road is too congested for them to use (either that time, or in general). There is a congestion externality on them despite not using the road.
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        That's fair, but it probably leaves drivers feeling at least half of the effect they cause, rather than the fraction of a percent implied by seizethecheese.
    - seizethecheese 12y ago
      Each driver is causing themselves 10 and everybody else 990. Your analysis acts as if people make decisions as a group. "Each driver is paying their exact cost." Yes, but on the margin each driver can only choose a small chunk of their cost. Seriously, have you looked at the enormous literature on this? One major annoyance on HN is the way CS people assume that they can independently grok the intricacies of any field.
rayiner 12y ago
But that's highly inefficient. Everyone pays in the form of time, but some peoples' time is more valuable. Congestion pricing fixes that.
- Avshalom 12y ago
  Well except that the people paid the least per hour are also the ones who can afford to lose time the least and have the least ability to pay for congestion.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    So the people who can least afford to lose time will avoid congested traffic and lose less time? Sounds like that could work out well.
    - frandroid 12y ago
      If you wait an extra hour before commuting home because of the cost, I don't call that "lose less time".
- notatoad 12y ago
  Some people's money is more valuable as well. Congestion pricing simply tips the balance of the system in favour of people who value time more than money.
goodcanadian 12y ago
Public transportation is typically worse than using a private car. You can't decide when to leave, you pretty much need to plan your trips around public transportation. They don't take you directly from A to B etc. This is typically true in North America, but it is not a fundamental law. Particularly, in Europe, but also for some trips in Sydney, Vancouver, et cetera, I have found public transit superior to a private car. The key is to have as wide of a network as possible, frequent service (every 5 minutes so you don't need to think about schedules) and a average speed that is higher than the car (doable with trains, dedicated bus lanes and so on). Anywhere that there is enough traffic to cause congestion ought to be a viable place for public transportation . . . population density is not necessarily the driving factor. In fact, in some situations, a high population density might allow people to move less as they are closer to shops, work, friends, et cetera, rendering transit less important. No, the problem with public transit in North America isn't some fundamental flaw with public transit, it is because we tend to half-ass it.
- GVIrish 12y ago
  Population density is key to mass transit otherwise you have to spend a lot more money to provide frequent and convenient service. You can't get around the need for high enough ridership to make a transit system financially viable. Sparse population density = higher per rider cost = more difficult to offer frequent service without losing a lot of money. In North America part of the reason we don't have as much mass transit as other parts of the world is because we like our urban sprawl and that makes it difficult to make the economics work out.
  - Swizec 12y ago
    > make a transit system financially viable I don't know about other parts of Europe, but where I'm from public transit is most definitely not financially viable. Even in the big cities, it produces millions of euro of losses each year. Those are covered by taxes. The problem in North America isn't [just] the suburban sprawl, it's also that you want to make a profit off of everything. Sometimes some things just need to be a public service because it's better that way.
smutticus 12y ago
> Public transportation is typically worse than using a private car. You can't decide when to leave, you pretty much need to plan your trips around public transportation. They don't take you directly from A to B etc. Public transportation becomes effective only when population density becomes high enough. When PT is done right, it's much more predictable than private cars. Being able to leave when you want does you no good when you're dealing with unpredictable traffic.
- warfangle 12y ago
  Yep. Solid PT runs on a demand schedule too: during hours heavily traveled a train might run every four minutes; during the dead of night it may not run at all or run infrequency, like every forty-five minutes. And to the GP's point, they most definitely take you from point A to point B. Those two points may not be where you are and where you want to go, though with a solid network it'll usually be within ambulatory distance. ;)
MBlume 12y ago
> Drivers already pay for the cost in lost time. It's a 'natural' market. Yes, but it's a negative sum market. The lost time the drivers are paying is lost, it is destroyed, hours that could have been spent in productive work, or in enjoyable leisure are being wasted. Setting up the market to work in dollars rather than hours avoids this. The dollars are transferred but no resource is squandered.
warfangle 12y ago
> Drivers already pay for the cost in lost time. It's a 'natural' market. Except it's not: unless you're extraordinarily prescient (or have access to real-time, accurate-to-the-meter traffic data), the driver cannot act as a rational actor because he has imperfect knowledge about the transaction. And that's assuming he'd act like a rational actor anyways -- and anyone who's studied real life instead of theory will tell you that most actors are not rational except, sometimes, in aggregate.
frandroid 12y ago
Have you not ever been in a traffic jam?
- nawitus 12y ago
  'Traffic jam' is not a good concept to talk about. You need to talk about utility. In more concrete terms, you need to talk about travel time. Talking about whether or not something is a traffic jam or not is simply losing information. I'm not interested in the definition of a 'traffic jam'. I'm not interested to know if I've ever been in a 'traffic jam' or not.
rtpg 12y ago
In big cities like Tokyo you can just go into the subways/train lines and demand is high enough that you'll only wait maybe 5 or 10 minutes. Not to mention that it's faster than a car most of the time (due to no red lights or the like). And if you really need A -> B directly, there are taxis. In the same cities owning a car is also inconvenient, it's not like you can park anywhere. The fact that public transportation sucks in a lot of cities is not due to intrinsic qualities of these solutions, it's a consequence of shitty urbanisation planning that makes it hard to offer a good public transportation strategy.
morgante 12y ago
> Public transportation is typically worse than using a private car. Says who? Instead of spending time stressfully navigating through a slow maze of cars, you can read a book while quickly and predictably getting to your destination. (Public transit is substantially more predictable than traffic.) I'd take a train over a car every time.

by nawitus 12y ago

seizethecheese 12y ago

'Drivers already pay the cost in lost time.' Yes, but not all of the cost. If each additional car adds 10 seconds to commutes, each driver will only pay a pittance more for her decision to hit the road. Meanwhile they are imposing large costs of 10 seconds * each driver on the road. Look up the economics of externalities again and you'll see that an additional congestion charge is well founded in theory.

kvb 12y ago
I'm curious why this is being downvoted. Isn't congestion a textbook externality?
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Assume 100 drivers each cause 10 seconds of slowdown. Assume every driver is equally at fault. Each driver is causing 1000 person-seconds of slowdown. Each driver is receiving 1000 person-seconds of slowdown. Seems fair to me, and each driver is paying their exact cost. It's wrong to look at the externalities drivers output and ignore the externalities drivers input.
  - kvb 12y ago
    No, you have to look at the margin. The other 99 people are already there, and you have to choose whether or not to drive; you slow down everyone after you, but you don't slow yourself down.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      Everyone before you chose to inconvenience all comers before and after. In a situation like this, especially because it's iterated every day, these people are clearly choosing to slow, and be slowed by, everyone coming after them. Being on the road first doesn't give you moral superiority. In some situations the margin of newcomers is a fair way to look at it. But with drivers on the road, these people are all getting up in the morning and choosing to use this road at the same time. It is a continuous reaffirmation, day by day, that this is the path they want, no matter who they slow down, and they accept being slowed in return.
  - SilasX 12y ago
    You need to count the people who would like to use the road, but must choose their next-best option because the road is too congested for them to use (either that time, or in general). There is a congestion externality on them despite not using the road.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      That's fair, but it probably leaves drivers feeling at least half of the effect they cause, rather than the fraction of a percent implied by seizethecheese.
  - seizethecheese 12y ago
    Each driver is causing themselves 10 and everybody else 990. Your analysis acts as if people make decisions as a group. "Each driver is paying their exact cost." Yes, but on the margin each driver can only choose a small chunk of their cost. Seriously, have you looked at the enormous literature on this? One major annoyance on HN is the way CS people assume that they can independently grok the intricacies of any field.

rayiner 12y ago

But that's highly inefficient. Everyone pays in the form of time, but some peoples' time is more valuable. Congestion pricing fixes that.

Avshalom 12y ago
Well except that the people paid the least per hour are also the ones who can afford to lose time the least and have the least ability to pay for congestion.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  So the people who can least afford to lose time will avoid congested traffic and lose less time? Sounds like that could work out well.
  - frandroid 12y ago
    If you wait an extra hour before commuting home because of the cost, I don't call that "lose less time".
notatoad 12y ago
Some people's money is more valuable as well. Congestion pricing simply tips the balance of the system in favour of people who value time more than money.

goodcanadian 12y ago

Public transportation is typically worse than using a private car. You can't decide when to leave, you pretty much need to plan your trips around public transportation. They don't take you directly from A to B etc. This is typically true in North America, but it is not a fundamental law. Particularly, in Europe, but also for some trips in Sydney, Vancouver, et cetera, I have found public transit superior to a private car. The key is to have as wide of a network as possible, frequent service (every 5 minutes so you don't need to think about schedules) and a average speed that is higher than the car (doable with trains, dedicated bus lanes and so on). Anywhere that there is enough traffic to cause congestion ought to be a viable place for public transportation . . . population density is not necessarily the driving factor. In fact, in some situations, a high population density might allow people to move less as they are closer to shops, work, friends, et cetera, rendering transit less important. No, the problem with public transit in North America isn't some fundamental flaw with public transit, it is because we tend to half-ass it.

GVIrish 12y ago
Population density is key to mass transit otherwise you have to spend a lot more money to provide frequent and convenient service. You can't get around the need for high enough ridership to make a transit system financially viable. Sparse population density = higher per rider cost = more difficult to offer frequent service without losing a lot of money. In North America part of the reason we don't have as much mass transit as other parts of the world is because we like our urban sprawl and that makes it difficult to make the economics work out.
- Swizec 12y ago
  > make a transit system financially viable I don't know about other parts of Europe, but where I'm from public transit is most definitely not financially viable. Even in the big cities, it produces millions of euro of losses each year. Those are covered by taxes. The problem in North America isn't [just] the suburban sprawl, it's also that you want to make a profit off of everything. Sometimes some things just need to be a public service because it's better that way.

smutticus 12y ago

> Public transportation is typically worse than using a private car. You can't decide when to leave, you pretty much need to plan your trips around public transportation. They don't take you directly from A to B etc. Public transportation becomes effective only when population density becomes high enough. When PT is done right, it's much more predictable than private cars. Being able to leave when you want does you no good when you're dealing with unpredictable traffic.

warfangle 12y ago
Yep. Solid PT runs on a demand schedule too: during hours heavily traveled a train might run every four minutes; during the dead of night it may not run at all or run infrequency, like every forty-five minutes. And to the GP's point, they most definitely take you from point A to point B. Those two points may not be where you are and where you want to go, though with a solid network it'll usually be within ambulatory distance. ;)

MBlume 12y ago

> Drivers already pay for the cost in lost time. It's a 'natural' market. Yes, but it's a negative sum market. The lost time the drivers are paying is lost, it is destroyed, hours that could have been spent in productive work, or in enjoyable leisure are being wasted. Setting up the market to work in dollars rather than hours avoids this. The dollars are transferred but no resource is squandered.

warfangle 12y ago

> Drivers already pay for the cost in lost time. It's a 'natural' market. Except it's not: unless you're extraordinarily prescient (or have access to real-time, accurate-to-the-meter traffic data), the driver cannot act as a rational actor because he has imperfect knowledge about the transaction. And that's assuming he'd act like a rational actor anyways -- and anyone who's studied real life instead of theory will tell you that most actors are not rational except, sometimes, in aggregate.

frandroid 12y ago

Have you not ever been in a traffic jam?

nawitus 12y ago
'Traffic jam' is not a good concept to talk about. You need to talk about utility. In more concrete terms, you need to talk about travel time. Talking about whether or not something is a traffic jam or not is simply losing information. I'm not interested in the definition of a 'traffic jam'. I'm not interested to know if I've ever been in a 'traffic jam' or not.

rtpg 12y ago

In big cities like Tokyo you can just go into the subways/train lines and demand is high enough that you'll only wait maybe 5 or 10 minutes. Not to mention that it's faster than a car most of the time (due to no red lights or the like). And if you really need A -> B directly, there are taxis. In the same cities owning a car is also inconvenient, it's not like you can park anywhere. The fact that public transportation sucks in a lot of cities is not due to intrinsic qualities of these solutions, it's a consequence of shitty urbanisation planning that makes it hard to offer a good public transportation strategy.

morgante 12y ago

> Public transportation is typically worse than using a private car. Says who? Instead of spending time stressfully navigating through a slow maze of cars, you can read a book while quickly and predictably getting to your destination. (Public transit is substantially more predictable than traffic.) I'd take a train over a car every time.