Congestion Pricing

[The Ghostbuster]

Where do you think congestion pricing should be implemented where it doesn't currently exist? My first pick would be New York City.

[tradephoric]

Nowhere.  Congestion pricing is a money grab by politicians.  The congestion charge in London was originally set at £5 when the program was first introduced on February 17, 2003. Ken Livingstone, the Major of London, said this at the time...

"I can't conceive of any circumstances in the foreseeable future where we would want to change the charge, although perhaps 10 years down the line it may be necessary."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2797177.stm

After his re-election in 2004, he promptly raised the congestion charge to £8 for private vehicles and £7 for commercial traffic. He then supported raising the charge to £10 by 2008. Currently, the congestion charge sits at £11.50 a day.

Has the congestion charge reduced congestion in central London? Not according to INRIX:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-25622364

[riiga]

It should be abolished/never implemented to begin with. By principle all public roads should be free to use.

Sweden introduced such pricing in both Stockholm and Gothenburg, costing between $1 and $2.5 depending on time of day and time of year (Evenings, nights, weekends, holidays and the month of July are all free). While it has helped raise money for infrastructure improvement in the areas, it's those that are less well off that are hurt by such congestion pricing. $100/month is a lot for someone reliant on their car while making minimum wage, but much less so for the rich.

[vdeane]

I'd love to see congestion pricing on the interstates in the Albany area, particularly the Northway.  I-87 regularly becomes a parking lot during rush hour, especially during tourist season, when you have vacationers and shoppers mix with the large commuting volume.  It doesn't help that development on the east, west, and south sides becomes rural very quickly but stays suburban for 60 miles on the north side (the only side where one runs into neither mountains nor tolls immediately upon exiting the city).

[corco]

Doesn't de facto congestion pricing essentially exist to get into New York City? It's not explicit, but all of the major inbound points of entry are tolled at an excessive toll rate.

I actually don't like congestion pricing as a means to force people to use transit to get into town, because it unnecessarily costs people who have no choice but to use a car (deliveries, service people who work weird hours, etc). I'd much rather see a positive incentive to use transit, such as providing transit facilities that are clearly more convenient than the car, free park and ride in the suburbs, etc.  If the problem is that streets are too congested, look for the source of the problem (the easiest way to get to work in a very dense area is to use a car causing insane congestion, lack of affordable and appealing housing near workplaces, etc) as opposed to just treating the symptoms (too many cars).

I'd hazard that in America, congestion pricing would push business away from city centers and out to the suburbs unless a very high quality transit system were in place already. Some might think that's a good thing. Others might not. That's a policy decision that has to be made locally.

[The Ghostbuster]

I see people are kind of sour about congestion pricing. Congestion today has been said to be based on the use and mispricing of roads. I think congestion pricing is the only way to reduce congestion long-term. Of course we're bound to have self-driving cars eventually, but I'll leave that for another topic.

[jakeroot]

I'd hazard that in America, congestion pricing would push business away from city centers and out to the suburbs unless a very high quality transit system were in place already. Some might think that's a good thing. Others might not. That's a policy decision that has to be made locally.

I think that's a logical point. Customers might even expect the business owner to pay their congestion charge, and that could get expensive. Which, of course leads to higher-priced goods.

[cl94]

I'd love to see congestion pricing on the interstates in the Albany area, particularly the Northway.  I-87 regularly becomes a parking lot during rush hour, especially during tourist season, when you have vacationers and shoppers mix with the large commuting volume.  It doesn't help that development on the east, west, and south sides becomes rural very quickly but stays suburban for 60 miles on the north side (the only side where one runs into neither mountains nor tolls immediately upon exiting the city).

No and just because the terrain limits the number of north/south roads. US 4, US 9, NY 32, NY 50, and NY 146 aren't great during rush hour, either. I would consider HOT lanes south of Exit 13, however. Give people a chance to bypass the Twin Bridges. Certainly room in the median for it in most places and where there isn't, bridge over or tunnel under. Could be either reversible or two separate roadways, with direct access from I-90/Thruway, Exit 4, NY 7, and a couple places north of the river.

My father spent quite a long time commuting between Albany and Queensbury. It was often faster for him to detour over to NY 40 because of the traffic over the Mohawk River bridges and the roads leading to/from them. That area is hellish and nothing short of adding lanes or much better mass transit options will fix it.

[cpzilliacus]

It should be abolished/never implemented to begin with. By principle all public roads should be free to use.

I disagree.  In congested areas, pricing is a better way to allocate (scarce) highway capacity than forcing traffic to sit in long queues, wasting energy and emitting CO2 and other pollutants.  I drive frequently on a new highway that uses congestion pricing. 

Unless there is a crash, it is never congested. Ca. 91 (Riverside Freeway) in Orange County, California has long had two HOV/toll lanes in each direction in the median of the freeway.  Those lanes are never congested either.

Sweden introduced such pricing in both Stockholm and Gothenburg, costing between $1 and $2.5 depending on time of day and time of year (Evenings, nights, weekends, holidays and the month of July are all free). While it has helped raise money for infrastructure improvement in the areas, it's those that are less well off that are hurt by such congestion pricing. $100/month is a lot for someone reliant on their car while making minimum wage, but much less so for the rich.

Stockholm (and, for that matter, London) have excellent public transportation serving the areas subject to congestion taxing or tolling.  So that is (in those travel markets) a reasonable alternative.

I think Gothenburg does as well, but i have not been there for many, many years.

[Duke87]

The reason it's ineffective at reducing congestion is the same reason everything is ineffective at reducing congestion - latent demand.  Discourage a few people from making the trip by raising the price, and a few more people will eagerly and willingly take their place, and we're back to square one.

Or to put it another way, most major urban areas suffer from a major shortage of transportation infrastructure. To actually make the roads not congested you would either need to build a fuckton of extra capacity, like several times what currently exists, or you would need to set the price so high as to impose massive sticker shock that will keep people away even if traffic is flowing freely.

Indeed, it is inherently self-contradictory to say that we should set a "reasonable" price, and then pitch it as a congestion reducer. In order to actually reduce congestion by this method, the price needs to be more than most people are willing to pay (i.e. unreasonable).

[cpzilliacus]

Indeed, it is inherently self-contradictory to say that we should set a "reasonable" price, and then pitch it as a congestion reducer. In order to actually reduce congestion by this method, the price needs to be more than most people are willing to pay (i.e. unreasonable).

I suggest stating it this way - price the road high enough to assure that traffic moves at Level-of-Service C or maybe D (heavy, but the flow of vehicles is not breaking down).

That price may in fact not be what many would-be users consider reasonable.   

Transurban says on their Web site that the per-mile price on the 495 Express Lanes in Northern Virginia can be as high as $1.25 (!) per mile.

[cl94]

Indeed, it is inherently self-contradictory to say that we should set a "reasonable" price, and then pitch it as a congestion reducer. In order to actually reduce congestion by this method, the price needs to be more than most people are willing to pay (i.e. unreasonable).

I suggest stating it this way - price the road high enough to assure that traffic moves at Level-of-Service C or maybe D (heavy, but the flow of vehicles is not breaking down).

That price may in fact not be what many would-be users consider reasonable.   

Transurban says on their Web site that the per-mile price on the 495 Express Lanes in Northern Virginia can be as high as $1.25 (!) per mile.

Thing about the express lanes is that there is an alternate if you don't want to pay the price. Don't want to shell out $1.25/mile? Take the parallel free lanes. A lot of proposed/current schemes leave you up a creek without a paddle if you have to drive and don't want to pay.

[jeffandnicole]

It should be abolished/never implemented to begin with. By principle all public roads should be free to use.

Jails are built with tax money, but yet I never see anyone demanding that they should be able to use them.

[thenetwork]

I have said this once before, but with the rise in electronic tolling I had always thought of having a rush-hour toll on inbound and crosstown freeways using on- or off-ramps and on the mainlines at the start of the "toll-zone" where a simple flat-rate toll ($1-5) would be implemented.  If you leave the freeway and return anytime within the active zone (inbound in the AM/outbound in the PM, both on crosstown highways) you would incur another toll.

The result would lessen the traffic caused by short-distance users and, in areas where bottlenecks are the norm, deter those drivers who will use off- and on-ramps to try to jump ahead in the traffic jam queues.  It could also promote businesses to create flex-times for working so that more workers might be able to come in and/or leave after toll-zone hours (10-hour shifts, 4 days a week, for example).

What would have to be done is that the local/state governments would have to use all money in tolls to maintain/improve the freeways within the toll-zones and to be 100% transparent in regularly reporting to the public all monies raised and spent.  Of course, neither would happen in today's governments.

[cpzilliacus]

I have said this once before, but with the rise in electronic tolling I had always thought of having a rush-hour toll on inbound and crosstown freeways using on- or off-ramps and on the mainlines at the start of the "toll-zone" where a simple flat-rate toll ($1-5) would be implemented.  If you leave the freeway and return anytime within the active zone (inbound in the AM/outbound in the PM, both on crosstown highways) you would incur another toll.

You have effectively just described how the Stockholm, Sweden congestion tax is implemented. 

Crossing the congestion tax boundary (only in effect weekdays from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM) results in a charge that varies from about U.S. $1.20 to U.S. $2.40, with a maximum of U.S. $7.20 for repeatedly crossing the cordon line in any one day that the tax is in effect.

Compared to what the bridges and tunnels operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the New York MTA charge, this tax is pretty cheap (but then motor fuel is much more heavily taxed in Sweden than it is anywhere in the U.S.).

[Duke87]

It could also promote businesses to create flex-times for working so that more workers might be able to come in and/or leave after toll-zone hours (10-hour shifts, 4 days a week, for example).

You know, I do always say that a lot of employers could really stand to be more flexible with their hours. A lot of employees have strict set schedules for little reason beyond cultural inertia.

That said I hesitate to advocate too hard in favor of shift offsetting since due to the whole latent demand thing this would in many cases likely result in having congestion all day instead of just during rush hour, which is the exact opposite of improvement. Allowing more people work from home so they don't need to use up resources commuting at all, however, is an awesome idea.

[riiga]

It should be abolished/never implemented to begin with. By principle all public roads should be free to use.

Jails are built with tax money, but yet I never see anyone demanding that they should be able to use them.

Comparing apples and oranges now are we?

[jeffandnicole]

It should be abolished/never implemented to begin with. By principle all public roads should be free to use.

Jails are built with tax money, but yet I never see anyone demanding that they should be able to use them.

Comparing apples and oranges now are we?

Not really.  People will often say that they should be able to use the roads because they were built with their tax money and they pay fuel taxes so they should be able to use the roads.  And don't think of putting tolls on them, because they're already paying taxes on those roads.

Roads are by far the most visible of public works, taxpayer funded projects.  There's a lot of other infrastructure built and paid with tax money.  Yet, you rarely hear someone say they have the right to use that other infrastructure paid for with their tax money.

[formulanone]

None.

Shouldn't the possibility of more traffic be punishment enough? Or can we not expect others to plan their trips accordingly? Or that you have to pay to park in most cities, or endure a greater chance of accidents? The monies rarely goes towards capacity improvement, it's designed to facilitate those who aren't directly impacted (excluding those who've had their neighborhood demolished to make way for a large public works project).

[cpzilliacus]

Not really.  People will often say that they should be able to use the roads because they were built with their tax money and they pay fuel taxes so they should be able to use the roads.  And don't think of putting tolls on them, because they're already paying taxes on those roads.

Such assertions always ignore this fact - most freeway-class roads, as well as arterial highways and bridges generally, wear out and need to be reconstructed after decades of use.  This holds true even on parkways where there is little or no truck traffic.

In cold(er) climates there's also the matter of winter maintenance, which can be expensive but must get done. 

Roads are by far the most visible of public works, taxpayer funded projects.  There's a lot of other infrastructure built and paid with tax money.  Yet, you rarely hear someone say they have the right to use that other infrastructure paid for with their tax money.

Agreed, though some of that infrastructure (including some of the best-engineered and best-maintained highway infrastructure in the U.S.) is toll-maintained, not tax-maintained. 

[cpzilliacus]

Shouldn't the possibility of more traffic be punishment enough? Or can we not expect others to plan their trips accordingly? Or that you have to pay to park in most cities, or endure a greater chance of accidents? The monies rarely goes towards capacity improvement, it's designed to facilitate those who aren't directly impacted (excluding those who've had their neighborhood demolished to make way for a large public works project).

There is also the matter of more wear on vehicle power trains and brakes, excessive fuel consumption, and higher tailpipe emissions from vehicles that have to operate in congested or severely-congested conditions. 

Those are "hidden" costs of congested highways. 

They are not "hidden" if a road is properly priced. 

[mrsman]

Based on the discussion so far, there are three different types of road pricing, with different benefits and results:

1) Toll (or HOT) lanes vs regular lanes on an expressway.  The toll would definitely keep some people away, so that the toll lanes would move better than the regular lanes on the same routing.

2) Toll freeway vs regular streets.  Here again you provide a choice to the motoring public.  The toll freeway could be priced to achieve congestion-free driving, if desired.

3) Toll bridges (or tunnels).  No way to cross the river without paying toll.  If different bridges have different toll rates, pricing can be used to direct traffic to favor one crossing over another.  If all the local crossings have the same toll rate, then there would be no traffic reduction employed (just collection of revenue) unless enough people are encouraged to take alternative transportation.

4) Toll cordon - like London and Stockholm.  No way to cross into a certain district during certain times without paying tolls.  Congestion reduction only achieved if enough people are encouraged to take alternative transportation or travel during off-peak.