News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

How and why road-pricing will happen

Started by cpzilliacus, August 21, 2017, 11:15:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

cpzilliacus

The Economist: How and why road-pricing will happen - As ride-sharing and electric cars take off, governments are seeking new ways to make drivers pay

QuoteIN 1868 the world's first traffic light was installed outside the Houses of Parliament. The gaslit signal controlled the flow of London carriages–at least for a few weeks. For, soon enough, the gas ignited. The resulting explosion knocked the helmet off a policeman's head, and left him badly burned.

QuoteEfforts to ease congestion no longer literally blow up in your face, but recent schemes have run into trouble, too. In 2003 Ken Livingstone, then London's mayor, introduced a congestion-charging zone (CCZ). Motorists pay up to £11.50 a day ($15.20) to drive into the centre of the city. Since 2000 the number of cars entering central London has fallen by nearly a quarter. But congestion is rising again (see chart 1), a result of vans and taxis clocking up more miles within the zone, as well as new lanes for buses and Lycra-clad commuters that have reduced the road space for cars. More minutes are lost to delays than before the CCZ. The average vehicle speed has fallen from 19.9 miles (32.0km) per hour in 2013 to 17.7mph (28.5kph) in 2016.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.


AlexandriaVA

It's the only way to allocate scarce resources (i.e. road space) in high-demand times. The revenue is a nice benefit but not the primary reason. Road pricing isn't warranted in below-demand environemnts (e.g. rural highways).

kalvado

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 21, 2017, 11:49:30 AM
It's the only way to allocate scarce resources (i.e. road space) in high-demand times. The revenue is a nice benefit but not the primary reason. Road pricing isn't warranted in below-demand environemnts (e.g. rural highways).
Thing is, economics is not the only consideration here. Rural highways would never get enough money under flat rate approximation (i.e. gas tax, cents/gallon, which translates into cents per mile) due to low traffic, and road is primarily degraded by elements - not by traffic flow.
From the economic perspective you either need to abandon the road (it doesn't cover costs) or price it for the cost (pricing out farmers). Both may end up being bad ideas once it turns out there is not enough food being produced since farmers cannot get to their fields or move crops out.

AlexandriaVA

You missed the third option, which is what we've done for most rural utilities in our history (rural mail, rural electricity, rural airport): large subsidies.

kalvado

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 21, 2017, 12:40:35 PM
You missed the third option, which is what we've done for most rural utilities in our history (rural mail, rural electricity, rural airport): large subsidies.
That is exactly the point - describing infrastructure in terms of supply-demand may be a serious mistake... It may be less obvious statement for congested city centers, but I suspect pricing people  out will end up in more problems as well.

AlexandriaVA

At peak times, somebody has to be crowded out. The question is how do you ration.

Right now highways are rationed by queue...first-come, first-serve, and you wait it out.

Pricing allows for free-flow movements, and rationing is done by ability and willingness to pay.

kalvado

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 21, 2017, 01:00:56 PM
At peak times, somebody has to be crowded out. The question is how do you ration.

Right now highways are rationed by queue...first-come, first-serve, and you wait it out.

Pricing allows for free-flow movements, and rationing is done by ability and willingness to pay.
Which may or may not be a fair approach. Until you think that doctor, who can pay tolls is more valuable than janitor who cleans doctor's office - who cannot afford the tolls, but as a result of congestion cannot commute fast enough to work second job. Oh, and since janitor is also priced out of that old junky apartment in city center, their commute is now even longer...

I would think that pricing out businesses is a better idea than pricing out people. There need to be a more uniform distribution of jobs, I don't see the reason city center must be that packed... Unfortunately urbanism is popular, and their ideas are pushing things denser and denser...

AlexandriaVA

Yes, making more money has its advantages. Any other insights?

The Ghostbuster

I have read a great deal about road pricing and I am a strong proponent of the concept. I believe road pricing is the best way to relieve congestion and maintain it long-term. I can't predict how and why road pricing will happen in the future, but I do believe that ultimately, it will be as much a part of society as anything else that persists in our modern lifestyles.

SP Cook

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 21, 2017, 12:40:35 PM
You missed the third option, which is what we've done for most rural utilities in our history (rural mail, rural electricity, rural airport): large subsidies.

Services like mail or utilities are different from roads.  Providing electricty to a rural home benefits the occupants of said home.  A rural highway, even a fairly major one, might not have enough traffic to "pay for itself", but having a national highway system is certainly important.  You cannot just have city streets and make everybody take the train from town to town.

As to airports, hopefully the next budget will finally kill EAS, which is a waste.

AlexandriaVA

I doubt many individuals actually really need a national network.

I obviously understand that the national network is important for freight, so let logistics companies pay for it and lease out capacity to private motorists.

Rural highways can be paid for by the states for all I care. Most of the country can survive on two-lane roads supported at the state and local level.

Brandon

Quote from: SP Cook on August 21, 2017, 03:36:09 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 21, 2017, 12:40:35 PM
You missed the third option, which is what we've done for most rural utilities in our history (rural mail, rural electricity, rural airport): large subsidies.

Services like mail or utilities are different from roads.  Providing electricty to a rural home benefits the occupants of said home.  A rural highway, even a fairly major one, might not have enough traffic to "pay for itself", but having a national highway system is certainly important.  You cannot just have city streets and make everybody take the train from town to town.

As to airports, hopefully the next budget will finally kill EAS, which is a waste.

Depends on where EAS is a "waste".  If your nearest major airport is many hours away, as it is in the West, then EAS is hardly a "waste.  if the EAS airport is within an hour of another major airport, then yes, that is a waste.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Brandon

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 21, 2017, 04:18:13 PM
I doubt many individuals actually really need a national network.

I obviously understand that the national network is important for freight, so let logistics companies pay for it and lease out capacity to private motorists.

Rural highways can be paid for by the states for all I care. Most of the country can survive on two-lane roads supported at the state and local level.

Rural roads, at least here in Illinois, are paid for through property taxes and local gas and sales taxes.  They tend to be owned by the township.  Then there are county highways, which are the only roads the county maintains through a combination of gas and sales taxes.  The state maintains relatively few rural roads outside of interstate, US, and state highways.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Aerobird

Quote from: SP Cook on August 21, 2017, 03:36:09 PMServices like mail or utilities are different from roads.  Providing electricty to a rural home benefits the occupants of said home.  A rural highway, even a fairly major one, might not have enough traffic to "pay for itself", but having a national highway system is certainly important.  You cannot just have city streets and make everybody take the train from town to town.

...I'm pretty sure road access benefits the occupants of a rural home, too.
Rule 37. There is no 'overkill'. There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'.

SP Cook

Quote from: Aerobird on August 26, 2017, 03:54:58 AM
...I'm pretty sure road access benefits the occupants of a rural home, too.

But not exclusively.  Leaving out nitpicks, the fact that somebody in some rural home does or does not have power only really effects people in said rural home.  The existence of thru highways near that home effects everybody.

cl94

Quote from: Brandon on August 21, 2017, 05:01:15 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 21, 2017, 03:36:09 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 21, 2017, 12:40:35 PM
You missed the third option, which is what we've done for most rural utilities in our history (rural mail, rural electricity, rural airport): large subsidies.

Services like mail or utilities are different from roads.  Providing electricty to a rural home benefits the occupants of said home.  A rural highway, even a fairly major one, might not have enough traffic to "pay for itself", but having a national highway system is certainly important.  You cannot just have city streets and make everybody take the train from town to town.

As to airports, hopefully the next budget will finally kill EAS, which is a waste.

Depends on where EAS is a "waste".  If your nearest major airport is many hours away, as it is in the West, then EAS is hardly a "waste.  if the EAS airport is within an hour of another major airport, then yes, that is a waste.

Well, yes. In NY, almost all of the EAS airports are all within 2 hours of a major airport (whether it be American or in Montreal). Those can go bye-bye. Not the case in the west.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Chris

I understand the need for road pricing if there would be a large-scale shift to electric vehicles. But I'm also worried that some jurisdictions will use it as a tool to avoid having to upgrade roads. Why spend money if you can just increase the tolls to price traffic off? Traffic congestion could become a big cash cow. It is clear that when you have a metro area adding a million people every census, you need more than pricing to keep traffic moving.

Experience with congestion charges in Sweden and Norway show that the traffic reducing effect ebbs away after a year or so, so they have to implement 'price shock' increases to maintain their effect. Stockholm almost doubled rush hour pricing in 2016 with very few public debate in advance. Oslo will significantly increase the congestion charge in October, with tolls for diesel cars almost doubling.

Congestion-based pricing on express lanes in the United States show they often have to raise their maximum price level to keep traffic moving. Price ceilings are often reached quicker than anticipated. There was a Minnesota study that showed that drivers were actually incentivized to use express lanes when the tolls were at their highest, because they thought that would save them the most time.

The problem with road pricing is that once it is implemented, it's just a step away from becoming an easy cash cow, especially in more anti-car regions. Road pricing is still a lingering topic in the Netherlands, revived every once in a while by advocates, but deeply unpopular with the public, as it is seen as an easy money grab. Taxation is already extremely high in the Netherlands.

Rothman

I find the idea of "pricing traffic off" to be abhorrent, if only because you might as well say, "Only the rich can drive."
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

The Nature Boy

Quote from: cl94 on August 26, 2017, 01:31:27 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 21, 2017, 05:01:15 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 21, 2017, 03:36:09 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 21, 2017, 12:40:35 PM
You missed the third option, which is what we've done for most rural utilities in our history (rural mail, rural electricity, rural airport): large subsidies.

Services like mail or utilities are different from roads.  Providing electricty to a rural home benefits the occupants of said home.  A rural highway, even a fairly major one, might not have enough traffic to "pay for itself", but having a national highway system is certainly important.  You cannot just have city streets and make everybody take the train from town to town.

As to airports, hopefully the next budget will finally kill EAS, which is a waste.

Depends on where EAS is a "waste".  If your nearest major airport is many hours away, as it is in the West, then EAS is hardly a "waste.  if the EAS airport is within an hour of another major airport, then yes, that is a waste.

Well, yes. In NY, almost all of the EAS airports are all within 2 hours of a major airport (whether it be American or in Montreal). Those can go bye-bye. Not the case in the west.

I would make the argument for keeping Massena's EAS service because going to Montreal forces you to deal with the hassle of going through Customs. Due to wait times at the border, you can lose a significant chunk of time just waiting to cross and dealing with Customs, which you have to deal with again if you're just flying domestic. I would get rid of Ogdenburg's subsidy and consolidate with the Massena. You're also forcing people to get a passport (or enhanced driver's license) just to fly, which is also pretty unfair.

I would get rid of the EAS subsidies for Augusta and Rockland, Maine. They're close enough to Boston that you may as well just drive to Portland or even Boston. Presque Isle and Bar Harbor are isolated enough that they can keep theirs.  I'm close enough to Augusta that it SHOULD be my home airport but I always just drive to Boston.

kalvado

Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 26, 2017, 03:31:12 PM

I would make the argument for keeping Massena's EAS service because going to Montreal forces you to deal with the hassle of going through Customs. Due to wait times at the border, you can lose a significant chunk of time just waiting to cross and dealing with Customs, which you have to deal with again if you're just flying domestic. I would get rid of Ogdenburg's subsidy and consolidate with the Massena. You're also forcing people to get a passport (or enhanced driver's license) just to fly, which is also pretty unfair.

I would get rid of the EAS subsidies for Augusta and Rockland, Maine. They're close enough to Boston that you may as well just drive to Portland or even Boston. Presque Isle and Bar Harbor are isolated enough that they can keep theirs.  I'm close enough to Augusta that it SHOULD be my home airport but I always just drive to Boston.
EAS eligibility criteria is pretty crazy. And apparently no community enjoying EAS would give up on that - even if it is barely used.
As for Massena... believe it or not,  but Ogdenburg next door is getting commercial flying. Pretty specific - low cost flights to Florida for Ottawa traffic. If anything, I would look at encouraging that service. And flights to Albany seem... suboptimal, I would say.

But back on topic - do we all think that EAS and roads to remote locations are somehow equivalent?
I for one consider EAS to be a nice touch, but road (or year-round port, which is less common in lower 48) is a bare minimum to keep places inhabited. And keeping geographical diversity seems valuable to me, valuable beyond simple economics of mostly lower-profit rural products (agriculture, mineral, wood etc). Or we think that moving entire US population to 20 biggest cities and abandoning the rest of the country is a good idea? And where we draw a line for support of decaying remote community? 

UCFKnights

Quote from: Rothman on August 26, 2017, 03:08:45 PM
I find the idea of "pricing traffic off" to be abhorrent, if only because you might as well say, "Only the rich can drive."
Studies show that isn't true at all.

I'm a big fan of express lanes with congestion based pricing. If it can fund maintenance of the free lanes on top of itself, then if what you say were true, then the rich are subsidizing the poor people's roads. If what you say is false, its still giving people a choice of what to pay, and I feel strongly its a better way to tax then other methods that really effect the poor even more, like property tax and sales tax increases.

Rothman



Quote from: UCFKnights on August 26, 2017, 10:36:54 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 26, 2017, 03:08:45 PM
I find the idea of "pricing traffic off" to be abhorrent, if only because you might as well say, "Only the rich can drive."
Studies show that isn't true at all.

What studies are these?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

MisterSG1

#22
Accidental post....sorry

Beltway

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Aerobird

Quote from: UCFKnights on August 26, 2017, 10:36:54 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 26, 2017, 03:08:45 PM
I find the idea of "pricing traffic off" to be abhorrent, if only because you might as well say, "Only the rich can drive."
Studies show that isn't true at all.

I'm a big fan of express lanes with congestion based pricing. If it can fund maintenance of the free lanes on top of itself

You've missed the point: "road-pricing" would be for ALL lanes. You pay or you don't drive.
Rule 37. There is no 'overkill'. There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.