A Free-Lunch No-Brainer: Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance

pricingby James A. Bacon

Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) automobile insurance bases premiums on the number of miles the customer drives. It stands to reason: the less you drive, the less likely you are to be involved in a traffic accident. As it also happens, the less you drive, the less you contribute to traffic congestion. Thus, it is in the interest of state transportation policy makers to encourage the adoption of PAYD insurance.

PAYD is one of the pricing strategies explored in Smart Growth America’s new policy manual, “The Innovative DOT: a handbook of policy and practice.” In the third of eight focus areas, the manual also makes a case for congestion pricing on toll roads. That’s a topic I have addressed extensively elsewhere, and Virginia is already a leading practitioner, so I will not dwell upon it. Instead, I will focus on PAYD, which has only recently entered the Virginia insurance marketplace.

According to the SGA manual, the Brookings Institution has calculated that PAYD insurance implemented nationally could reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by eight percent and save $50 billion to $60 billion a year by reducing the number of crashes and other driving-related externalities. Moreover, two-thirds of households would save an average of $270 per car per year, making insurance more affordable and decreasing the number of uninsured drivers on the road.

If the Brookings estimate of eight-percent VMT savings is anywhere near accurate, a shift to PAYD would be the closest thing to a free lunch imaginable. In Virginia, an eight percent reduction in traffic would translate into tens of billions of dollars in construction dollars that would not have to be spent. Add hundreds of millions of dollars yearly in reduced accident-related costs, and the policy is the closest thing to a public policy “no brainer” I can think of.

There are two predictable sources of resistance. One is the alliance of contractors, engineers and related vendors who make their livings building transportation infrastructure. Another is people who drive a lot more than average; they will miss their subsidies from low-mileage drivers. But arrayed against them is a politically potent group: Everyone else.

From the standpoint of conservative philosophical principles, PAYD is a two-fer. First, it is fiscally conservative, potentially saving billions of dollars in transportation spending and reducing pressure for tax increases. Second, it is non-coercive and market-based. No one would force insurance companies to provide PAYD, and no one would compel drivers to adopt PAYD policies.

What Virginia state government can and should do is encourage the spread of PAYD insurance. First, eliminate any laws that might interfere with the adoption of the PAYD rate structure. Even better, join other states in explicitly allowing insurance companies to offer the product.

SGA suggests that it also might be helpful to adopt a pilot project.

One of the biggest obstacles to widespread adoption of PAYD is a lack of knowledge on the part of insurance companies and state decision makers about how to structure it. A pilot program can be an effective way to test potential payment structures and data collection methods and reduce the start-up costs to insurance companies. It can also be a means to collect state-specific data about the benefits of PAYD, by monitoring changes in driver behavior. State transportation agencies can play an important leadership role and, in many cases, will be in the best position to administer such a program.

Privacy issues are minimal. Most new cars already record odometer data electronically onto internal computers, and millions of cars provide the data through GPS-tracking services like On Star. Progressive Insurance also installs an odometer-tracking device for subscribers. If people are wigged out by privacy concerns, they should be free to opt out of PAYD and subscribe to traditional insurance policies.

One last thought. Think of the powerful impact created by adopting a Mileage Based User Fee (MBUF) for funding road maintenance (as described here) in conjunction with PAYD. For a typical driver, PAYD premiums would amount to about 6.5 cents per mile. In Virginia, a mileage-based user fee could cover the state’s maintenance budget for about 2.6 cents per mile. Add it up, and that’s about 9.5 cents per mile. If people calculated that it cost them a dime for every mile they traveled, they would likely find ways to drive less.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

21 responses to “A Free-Lunch No-Brainer: Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance”

  1. I suspect this idea is going to be as popular as tolls or GPS!

    Interestingly, people who oppose tolls the strongest are those that travel longer distances who claim that they are being penalized… as if more miles does not result in more consumption of road resources including capacity.

    I don’t think the Progressive “plug” is near as invasive as a govt version of it and the “plug” only keeps miles not track where you have been… but it does capture other info like speed, acceleration, braking and similar which is going to rule out the scofflaw types.. who would certainly lose their insurance if someone had a record of their driving behaviors.

    but, in general, when people have to pay per unit of use rather than an all-you-can-eat buffet plan – they tend to be more selective and more frugal.

    and I like the idea so much, that I’d actually like to expand it to PAYL … pay as you learn… for high schools courses beyond core academics…!!!!

    it would have the very same benefits… people would be more selective and more frugal and in the process save other taxpayers money.

    I actually think PAYL would promote more of a “is it worth it” type attitude from students and parents rather than ” we need ALL of it free (provided at taxpayer expense) attitude.

    I wonder how many courses and amenities if people had to pay for them and those courses and amenities had to e self-supporting?

    that would also incentivize competition from the private sector – to provide competing alternatives.. perhaps better offerings at lower prices!

    1. “I suspect this idea is going to be as popular as tolls or GPS.

      First response: Two-thirds of drivers would end up paying less.

      Second response: It’s voluntary, so, so what if it’s popular. If people don’t want to pay their insurance this way, then fine, let them stick with traditional plans.

  2. cpzilliacus Avatar
    cpzilliacus

    James A. Bacon wrote:

    Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) automobile insurance bases premiums on the number of miles the customer drives. It stands to reason: the less you drive, the less likely you are to be involved in a traffic accident. As it also happens, the less you drive, the less you contribute to traffic congestion. Thus, it is in the interest of state transportation policy makers to encourage the adoption of PAYD insurance.

    Jim, there are people that drive tens of thousands of miles every year with no crashes. Keep in mind that this is insurance, and most insurance companies already use one-way commute distance on the road as a way to price insurance policies.

    I don’t think insurance should be used as a tool for discouraging driving. If someone is a bad driver, then the cost of that insurance will already discourage them from getting behind the wheel (but many people just drive uninsured, even though that is unlawful in many states).

    Much better to price segments of the highway network that suffer from congestion.

    1. “Keep in mind that this is insurance, and most insurance companies already use one-way commute distance on the road as a way to price insurance policies.”

      Good point. But insurance companies should be free to offer whatever kind of policies they want, and drivers should be free to subscribe to whatever kind of policies they want. The point here is not to *impose* a particular insurance policy upon the state or country — I know, I know, an alien concept in the age of Obamacare — but to eliminate barriers to allowing the policies to be offered.

      If insurance companies find that giving cheap insurance to low-mileage drivers with a track record of lots of accidents doesn’t pay off, they’ll adjust their prices accordingly.

      1. cpzilliacus Avatar
        cpzilliacus

        James A. Bacon wrote:

        Good point. But insurance companies should be free to offer whatever kind of policies they want, and drivers should be free to subscribe to whatever kind of policies they want.

        That is fine by me.

        The point here is not to *impose* a particular insurance policy upon the state or country — I know, I know, an alien concept in the age of Obamacare — but to eliminate barriers to allowing the policies to be offered.

        Perhaps the better analogy is Medicare?

        Much closer to “socialist” funding of medical care than the ACA.

        If insurance companies find that giving cheap insurance to low-mileage drivers with a track record of lots of accidents doesn’t pay off, they’ll adjust their prices accordingly.

        Indeed they will.

      2. re: ” But insurance companies should be free to offer whatever kind of policies they want, and drivers should be free to subscribe to whatever kind of policies they want. The point here is not to *impose* a particular insurance policy upon the state or country — I know, I know, an alien concept in the age of Obamacare — but to eliminate barriers to allowing the policies to be offered.”

        well… if you don’t REQUIRE people to buy insurance, what happens?

        If someone damages you or your property and they have no insurance, then what happens? More than that, what if the police did not decide who was at fault and left that up to you to prove in a court?

        you can sue for damages but what if they have no assets? then what?

        we all take this for granted.. that if we have an accident, that we will be “covered”… but if no one had to buy insurance and many chose not to, what would happen?

  3. another way to look at this. We’re all entitled to our share of the roads including driving at congested times and congested roads… but are we entitled to “more” than others – for the same low price?

    this is not as weird as it might sound.

    think about your water bill. You get an allocation for one price but if you step up your use – it puts you into a higher rate (usually).

    electricity is starting to get priced this way using smart meters. If you use electricity during peak hour periods – you’ll get charged more.

    all of this really goes back to the idea that it costs money to provide capacity at some level but it costs a lot more to provide capacity/service at peak hour because that capacity is not used at non-peak hour.

    consider cell phones and supermarket checkouts.

    you make calls or go to the store during busy hours… and you pay more for for – or more precisely, you get less for your money in dropped calls and waiting in lines to get checked out, i.e. the time cost of congestion.

    the uninsured folks and people who use more than their share are called “free riders” – because in the end by not paying for their own use, means others will have to pay for it – and we do. we pay extra for auto insurance so we can pay for uninsured motorists.

    people who use more water and electricity and road capacity than others in turn create a need for more/higher capacity infrastructure – and that costs is passed on/shared even by those who did not create the need unless the cost structure charges more for higher uses.

    and this is not just a govt thing.. when you buy cell phone minutes. you get an allocation.. it’s up to you to manage it .. if you go over, you get whacked.

    1. Larry, I always get a little nervous when I agree with you, but in this instance, I do agree with you.

    2. cpzilliacus Avatar
      cpzilliacus

      larryg wrote:

      another way to look at this. We’re all entitled to our share of the roads including driving at congested times and congested roads… but are we entitled to “more” than others – for the same low price?

      How does one quantify what more is?

      Driving the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes in Fairfax County generally costs more at 7 A.M. than it does to use them at 2 A.M., very logical and rational.

      But is there a need to impose such pricing on U.S. 460 in Buchanan County at all? Or on the other side of the Commonwealth on U.S. 13 in Accomack County? The answer to both is an emphatic no.

      electricity is starting to get priced this way using smart meters. If you use electricity during peak hour periods – you’ll get charged more.

      This is not new – I have been paying (and saving money with) time-of-day electric power rates since the early 1990’s (my power company is Baltimore Gas and Electric).

      1. “How does one quantify what more is?”

        based on average use…. you size infrastructure such that you minimize excess capacity so that everyone is not paying more for something that sits idle.

        “Driving the I-495 HOV/Toll lanes in Fairfax County generally costs more at 7 A.M. than it does to use them at 2 A.M., very logical and rational.”

        agree

        “But is there a need to impose such pricing on U.S. 460 in Buchanan County at all? Or on the other side of the Commonwealth on U.S. 13 in Accomack County? The answer to both is an emphatic no.”

        agree completely but if you drove US 460 10 times as much as someone else are you imposing 10 times the maintenance need – AND are you really paying 10 times the cost? If you use the water analogy, 10 times the use would cost you not only 10 times more but an additional penalty for using more than the basic allocation – because they’d have to build in more capacity to serve the higher usage. Perhaps that means that US 460 was built originally with much excess capacity to start with.

        electricity is starting to get priced this way using smart meters. If you use electricity during peak hour periods – you’ll get charged more.

        “This is not new – I have been paying (and saving money with) time-of-day electric power rates since the early 1990′s (my power company is Baltimore Gas and Electric).”

        I’d like to hear more about it if you are so inclined… I do not know of any place in Va where it is done that way and perhaps that’s why the concept of congestion pricing is a bit foreign to Virginians.

  4. I’m actually pretty consistent … on this.. but I’m consistent across the spectrum including other services including schools.

    when we offer “all-you-can-consume” services for one price (or for less than what it costs or “free”), … that’s what happens…

    when we offer “you get an allocation then you pay for what more you use. the dynamics change.

    You see it with toll roads, cell phone minutes, even sports stadium seats, even restaurants that offer the same dinner entree for less at lunch!

    I’m in agreement with everyone receiving a basic allocation for things like water/sewer, transportation, cell phone minutes, schools, “only one at this price” sales, basic electricity, even transit peak hour vs non-peak hour.

    but the insurance deal – even fiscal conservatives and libertarian types seem to have trouble with the concept and the difference between voluntary and mandated and what that has to do with the free rider issue.

  5. I’m think I like the Free Rider idea better. It used to be I would never ask for a senior or military discount. But times change and now I make sure I get the discount when I eat at the Chinese buffet.

  6. one thing to get a discount… versus not buying insurance and in doing so, forcing others to buy more insurance so they can be covered if they have an accident with you!

    Mortgage companies will also force you to buy homeowners insurance because they know that some folks would not buy it – then if they had a fire.. they’d just walk away from the loan…

    same thing with Social Security.. and the new health care law…

    the issue is – who pays – when someone decides to not plan for their own needs? That’s the free rider issue.

    a “discount” for some folks like military or seniors.. or even refundable credits for education, EITC or energy purchases.. is not free rider… but some folks may consider it unfair.. or unwarranted.

    but to bring this back to transportation – we essentially do not charge enough for everyone to drive as much as they want to.. we charge enough – barely if everyone limits their driving…

    folks who do not limit their driving – end up requiring more capacity to be built.. and everyone else has to pay for it…

    this is not limited to roads.

    a good example is water/sewer which is based on average use per household and if household use goes beyond that – then extra capacity has to be built – and everyone has to pay for it – unless there are increased charges for the folks who use more than average…

    that’s why you’ll see water bills with step function rates… you get some allotment at one rate but if you exceed your allotment then the rates go up.

    if they did not do that – the ‘free rider” problem would appear.. and people would not care how much they used.. the proverbial “all-you-can-eat-for-one-price”.

  7. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Flaw in the basic premise. If you drive less you are less likely to be involved in a wreck?

    Isn’t it better to have drivers who are very experienced rather than one who only ventures onto the roads once in a while?

    Would you want a brain surgeon who does a procedure several times a year or several times a week?

    Also, (big problem with the “Internet of Things”) is privacy.Sooner or later they’ll be putting tracking devices on your car. Do you want insurance companies to know everything about you?

    1. Regarding Internet of Things and privacy — newly built cars already has GPS installed. Millions of people already subscribe to On Star and similar services that track your location. Tens of millions have smart phones with GPS, and Google is tracking your movements. This isn’t something that might happen in the future. IT’S ALREADY HERE!

      It’s here, and nobody’s complaining. But as soon as someone suggests to utilize the technology for a socially beneficial purpose, whoa, people get up in arms.

    2. “Isn’t it better to have drivers who are very experienced rather than one who only ventures onto the roads once in a while?”

      Why don’t you bring that up with Progressive Insurance. Maybe you know something they don’t!

  8. If roadways aren’t being used, they are being wasted. They have free HOV lanes down here. Mostly empty. So the trick is to charge for them?

  9. I’ve notice that down your way Darrell.

    there can be a 5 mile backup and hardly anyone in the HOV lane..

    weird!

  10. JOHN1000 Avatar

    Three points:
    1. No statistical correlation has been shown between miles driven and number of accidents. Someone out in the country driving 100 miles a day may well have fewer accidents than a city dweller driving 10 miles a day. The city dweller drives tougher miles, more congestion etc so he will have more accidents per mile driven. One reason insurance rates vary between areas.

    2. As far as infrastructure use, if you drive more miles you use more gas and pay more gasoline taxes. So you would be punished twice -paying more gas taxes and paying more for insurance. Sounds like you are telling country folk they better move to the cities – social engineering?

    3. So you try to be a good guy and drive a smaller high-mileage car.
    Some states started complaining that their tax revenues went down because some people (the good guys) were buying too little gas. So they want to add special taxes based on miles driven — thereby
    discouraging people from getting fuel efficient cars.
    Do you really want 2 and 3 above to be social policy?

    1. John:

      1. I figure the insurance company actuaries know more than you or I. No one will offer PAYD insurance unless they think they can make money doing so.

      2. No, people aren’t punished twice, they’re just paying for the costs and risks they incur. Charging for those costs and risks is not “social engineering.” Insulating people from those costs and risks through various subsidies and cross subsidies is social engineering.

      3. Charging people a mileage-based tax doesn’t punish fuel-efficiency. It punishes driving lots of miles. A mileage-based tax is indifferent to the fuel efficiency of the automobile.

  11. re: discouraging fuel efficient cars…

    no…

    but the point is – are you still paying your fair share of the infrastructure costs ?

    you said ” drive more, buy more gas, pay more tax”

    two questions:

    1. is the current gas tax sufficient to make up the shortfalls due to more
    people paying lower/less gas taxes because of fuel efficient cars?

    2. – if you have a fuel efficient car, are you paying an equal share for the infrastructure you use?

    some folks will say – that is not their problem.. but.. in fact.. it is… because of changes being made because of it.

    It’s really not about being a “good guy”. It’s about you paying your fair share of the fixed costs … of the infrastructure you still use. you don’t use less infrastructure with a fuel efficient car..you use the same or even more.. how do you pay for it?

    highways have to be paid for. 40% of that cost is for maintenance.

    people can effectively evade paying their share by getting a more fuel efficient car and who can blame anyone from doing that -most all of us are – but the costs of maintaining the infrastructure are still there -it does not reduce — and the fact is when you buy a fuel efficient car – you are paying less for the infrastructure – which means someone else has to pay more – or we let the infrastructure degrade.

    so what’s the answer?

    One answer is to spend less and less on new construction.

    just spend a greater and greater proportion of gas taxes – only on maintenance (and operations) and let someone else figure out how to finance new highways – some other way besides through gas taxes.

    In effect, we’ve made that decision. We’re increasing the sales tax on everyone – no matter how much you drive – you pay and we’re building more toll roads which are totally the opposite – user fees to the users.. regardless of their fuel efficient car.

    Perhaps we’re actually working towards a paradigm of sorts:

    1. – indexed gas taxes for maintenance and operations
    2. – tolls for new roads
    3. – sales taxes for transit

    sound like a reasonable plan? what a better one?

Leave a Reply