Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

CONGESTION PRICING AND THE REAL PROBLEM

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Welcome Mr. Leahy! Glad to have you on board!

I understand your concern for wasting money and diverting a new income stream to unworthy causes.

You did not comment on the observation in a past post that the real problem you noted in London is the need for Fundamental Change in governance structure. More on how you can help with that in a moment.

You also did not acknowledge the fact that throwing money into transport facilities, especially facilities to serve private vehicles is a waste.

With respect to London’s (or any) congestion pricing, the important metric is people and goods moved per hour and per day, not the congestion level among private vehicles.

Your source reports that congestion is down in spite of improvements to serve shared-vehicle systems. That sounds like a win / win.

Improvements to shared-vehicle systems are less of a waste and induce less new vehicular traffic than do improvements to private-vehicle systems. Perhaps improvements in the shared-vehicle system is where the money was supposed to go in the first place and it was not a diversion. Is that not a possibility?

There is a simple test of the Myth that putting money into new roadway improvements reduces congestion:

Name one New Urban Region in the First World where improvements in the roadway system have decreased REGIONAL vehicular congestion.

There is only two factors that strongly correlate with the speed of vehicle congestion growth. They are the size of the New Urban Region and the rate of population growth.

Over the period 1984 to 2004 (dates are from memory) there was no significant difference between the rate of congestion growth and the level of expenditure or the lane miles of roadway added. Houston is a good example of throwing good money after bad.

Now, the more important question for you on the issue of waste of revenue flow:

How can we get folks like you who are concerned with governments (and citizens) wasting money to focus on the fact that, especially the United States, an ever more dysfunctional settlement pattern is evolving. These patterns will continue to create higher and higher costs of goods and services (including the cost of mobility and access.)

It seems the real challenge for conservation, and conservatism in general, is to stop worrying about the nickels and dimes that are now wasted and start figuring out how to avoid future fiscal disaster.

It is clear that a democracy with a market economy cannot survive when the majority cannot afford the goods and services that they believe they deserve.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

23 responses to “CONGESTION PRICING AND THE REAL PROBLEM”

  1. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    The important metric is people and goods moved per hour and per day, per dollar.

    Another metric might be whether the people are moved to the locations of their choice or to some smaller selection of managed choices.

    The inefficiencies associated with the bureaucracies and operation of shared systems far outweigh their other alleged and unproven (in practice) benefits.

    The size of the region and the number of people in it have nothing to do with congestion. Congestion has to do with how many of those people must go the same places at the same time.

    The statement that “Over the period 1984 to 2004 (dates are from memory) there was no significant difference between the rate of congestion growth and the level of expenditure or the lane miles of roadway added. ” is at odds with the statisitics reported (and largely ignored) by TAMU.

    As reported by Winsont and Shirley, shared vehicle systems have a real economic and social advantage in supporting approximately 2% of our necessary transportation.

  2. rodger Avatar
    rodger

    Virginia has factors impacting our transportation systems that have no connection to congestion issues elsewhere such as:

    -the federal government’s demands
    on our transportation system;
    -the massive Hampton Roads ports
    demands placed on our system;
    -the East Coast traffic using I-81,
    I-85 and I-95;
    -the Mid-West traffic using I-81
    and other connecting highways in
    this part of the country;
    -truck traffic out of the Deep South, Canada and Mexico using these roads to move goods;
    -millions of tourists visiting the
    Greater Washington DC Metropolitan
    Area and attractions such as those
    around Williamsburg and Virginia
    Beach and traveling on our roads to the Outer Banks of North Carolina;
    -and the list goes on and on and on.

    We need an adequate transportation
    system to deal with these demands,
    plus our own growing population that may exceed 10 million persons
    within two decades.

  3. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    The statement that “Over the period 1984 to 2004 (dates are from memory) there was no significant difference between the rate of congestion growth and the level of expenditure or the lane miles of roadway added. ” is at odds with the statisitics reported (and largely ignored) by TAMU.

    It is in agreement with
    ANDREA SARZYNSKI,
    HAROLD L. WOLMAN et. Al. who found balancing housing and jobs at more locations reduced congestion.

    The money quote is

    … It will be expensive, and may be impractical or shortsighted in
    some areas, to continue expansion of roadways to keep pace with growth in congestion,
    presuming past trends are any indication of future growth. While travel demand
    management and roadway improvements may offer some relief, planners and
    policymakers should increasingly consider influencing land use patterns as an
    alternative approach to dealing with traffic congestion. For example, our results imply
    that increasing the proximity of housing to jobs may offer relief from lengthening
    commute times. To do so would better coordinate travel origins and destinations,
    thereby improving the capacity of the transportation network to handle travel demand.
    http://www.gwu.edu/~gwipp/papers/wp013.pdf

  4. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Balancing jobs with housing. Hmmm. Somehow I think some people will get upset with having an aircraft carrier sitting in their back yard.

    Back to the drawing board.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “how many of those people must go the same places at the same time.”

    MUST is untrue.

    WANT is the proper description.

    untrue: I MUST drive a HUMMER every day at rush hour to get to my job 50 miles from where I live.

    True: I don’t mind paying extra for a HUMMER and I like to drive whenever I choose from wherever I’ve chosen to live.

    What is the distinction important?

    Because it has EVERYTHING to do with Congestion and public policy with regard to using tax money for more roads to serve a WANT.

    When folks have to actually pay – quid pro quo for the goods and services that they WANT – the element of NEED enters the equation as it should.

    Without it – people and governments go broke.

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    We should never ever seek to dictate to people or businesses where to locate.

    That does not mean, however, that we agree as a society to pay all costs with those individual choice decisions.

    People have freedom .. and they have responsibility for their own choices.

    I’d love to have a HUMMER and pay no more for gasoline than the guy in that Prius.

    It’s actually unfair to force me to get into that small weird car to save gas and get on the HOV lanes.

    Why don’t we have a system where we all get exactly the kind of car we want and everyone pays the same price for gasoline?

    Folks – this is the logic being promoted with regard to roads.

    The original premise that users pay proportionately by how much gasoline they use is FALSE.

    Almost 1/2 of our Transportation Budget does NOT come from the gas tax but rather the sales tax.

    And the current budget being produced is proposing to take general tax revenues for roads.

    NOW – we ARE taking money from folks who choose to live close to where they work, buy smaller more efficient cars and try to avoid rush hour…. and giving that money to people who expect the government to subsidize the costs associated with their wasteful choices.

    The only way to properly allocate these costs is by charging PER TRIP based on the length and time of day.

    Is there a danger than TOLL roads will be badly/wastefully administered?

    You bet – take a look at how VDOT handled finances from the gas tax.

    Is this a reason to not utilize tolls?

    Well.. only if you agree that we should cut off funds to VDOT for wasting money also….

    this is a red herring in my view.

  7. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    Balancing Jobs and Housing does not mean living in a company home next to the mill. The size of the balance circle is different in different locations but is about 5 miles for jobs and housing and 3 miles for jobs and retail.

  8. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Jim W:

    I think we agree and I am not sure what is at odds with TAMU. The numbers we quoted were based on an analysis of TAMU data for the largest 68 (may have been less in the early years) New Urban Regions in the US of A.

    Also on the distance to jobs, retail, etc. The numbers you cite are illustrative of average trip distances to jobs or services.

    That is down from average trip distances of 20 and 10 miles for the two catigories in the typical dysfunctional settlement patterns now evolving. As you note it does not mean a Aircraft Carrier in the back yard.

    A lower average than 5 and 3 miles is possible and desireable based on the market value of housing within Village-scale shared-vehicle system station areas.

    We need to keep in mind that all the “trip distance” is vehicle-trip distance. The real benefit of functional settlement patterns comes from exchanging non-vehicle trips for vehicle trips.

    Finally, in the original post we suggested that the a measure of mobility and access should be the volume of people and goods moved.

    Sorry, we were in a rush.

    The real measure of a mobility and access sytems that optimizes citizens being happy and safe.

    Moving more people and more stuff faster and father is just another example of unsustainable growth.

    EMR

  9. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “…who found balancing housing and jobs at more locations reduced congestion.”

    Agreed. We need more places, not more in the same places.

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Balancing Jobs and Housing does not mean living in a company home next to the mill. The size of the balance circle is different in different locations but is about 5 miles for jobs and housing and 3 miles for jobs and retail.”

    If that’s the case, then we need a LOT more places.

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Almost 1/2 of our Transportation Budget does NOT come from the gas tax but rather the sales tax.”

    Yes, and sales are almost exactly correlated with how much we drive. There is, however, no correlation between how much an individual drives and how much sales tax he pays.

    We also pay for roads with property taxes, and property values are related to how good the roads that serve them are. There is, however, no correlation betweeen what ahome is worth and how far its owner drives.

    You are right. A gas tax of ten cents a gallon is politically impossible, and it isn’t enough. What we need is gas taxes equivalent to Europe – $2 to $5 per gallon. That is not going to happen, either.

  12. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    JW & EMR – It would be very interesting to see illustrative maps of where people would need to live if they drove/commuted no more than 5 miles from home to work versus where we are today. (D.C., Arlington, Alexandria, Tysons Corner, Reston, Bethesda, Rockville, etc.) But thanks for being so specific. I can now start to visualize more of your arguments in favor of major changes.

    A good reference point would be Metropolitan New York. How many people there live within 5 miles of their workplace?

    I think I’m with Ray Hyde on this one. If we all lived that close to work, we’d need quite a few more places.

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “I’d love to have a HUMMER and pay no more for gasoline than the guy in that Prius. “

    You can have a HUMMER and pay no more for gasoline than that guy in the prius. You’re just going to buy a lot more gasoline at the same price, or travel a lot less distance.

    You do have a choice.

    You wouldn’t catch me dead in a HUMMER, even ont the farm, even if it was solar powered.

    I had a job. The job moved. I don’t WANT to go to work, I MUST have a certain amount of money. What choice did I have that makes economic sense? How much would you have to charge in tolls before what I’m doing would no longer make sense?

    Suppose we reduced our living area by 300% so that we had three times as many people living in one third the area. Does anybody really think we would be driving one third as much? How many of the “abandoned” roads would we have to keep up anyway? Clearly we wouldn’t experience a reduction of one third in highway costs. Even if we reduce our driving, we will have more people breathing the fumes.

    Will we have some more densely populated areas, Yes. Is that going to be the only answer? No.

    So, lets make plans for what we are likely to have instead of what a few people would like us to have.

  14. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I could get on board with Wolman et al, but look closely at the quote given.

    There is no evidence that I know of that that increasing the proximity of housing to jobs …would better coordinate travel origins and destinations.

    Who, exactly, is going to coordinate my origins and destinations, other than me?

    Even assuming tht it could be done, and that people would stand for it there is no evidence that it will not be just as impractical, short sighted,and expensive to influence land use patterns as an alternative to increasing road capacity.

    As Larry says, how do you set the priorities? What metric would you use to balance the prospective costs and benefits of these alternatives? It boggles the mind to think that anyone could even conceive of a rational basis for such a policy, let alone actually sell it to the populace. There are so many trade-offs to be made, and each with so many subjective values, that the only rational way to make such a group decision is to let each make their own choice.

    As EMR points out we want people to be healthy and happy. That precludes the idea that we can enforce some behaviors over others with draconian tax structures or other thinly veiled social engineering like tolls.

    In order to keep the maximum people happy, you have to keep the relative costs of each alternative as nearly equal as possible. No better system for achieving that has ever worked out better than a free market.

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “I MUST have a certain amount of money. What choice did I have that makes economic sense?”

    I’ll not dispute what you say but only point out that we all make choices about how much money we think we need verses our own expenses for things we want.

    Your goal is to preserve what you have. It might well be a “must” to you but it should not result in a “must” to someone else to provide you with the infrastructure that is needed for you to do what you “must”.

    This logic is like saying that you MUST be able to fly at rush hour from here to California and you MUST be able to do it for $59.

    Suppose airlines did just that – how long would you have to wait in line to get a $59 ticket?

    Would you expect others who chose to fly not at rush hour to pay more for their ticket so you could yours for $59?

    That’s the argument that we use for congested infrastructure.

    Everyone starts off with MUST and everone follows that with – I should not have to pay more than I currently pay.

    Then the particularily unclever ones claims that the road you need is really the responsibility of the “STATE” where presumedly prints money rather than taking money out of others pockets to pay for your “MUST” needs.

    I’m not denigrating what is important to you. I’ll admit the same is important to me but the difference is that I’m more than willing to pay for what I use and I think if we all did that two important things would happen.

    1. – we’d decide the difference ourselves between “must” and “want” without having the government deciding.

    2. – we’d have to focus on cost-effective strategies that better match supply/demand economics.

    I had a choice many years ago between taking 3/4 salary by not commuting to NoVa or commuting to NoVa for the better salary.

    I could have bought.. more land.. more house.. and more of everything and then I would have been yet another person who said that I MUST commute.

    Do you see my point?

    I have less land and less house and less… because “must” was of my own desires….

  16. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Toomanytaxes:

    As we speak, we have staff working on refinement of graphics first prepared in 2003 to demonstrate functional the settlement patterns and their context. They will be published in TRILO-G.

    In the meantime check out our comments on Planned New Communities in a previous post and envision contiguous (sp? — no spell check on posts) Planned New Communities within a Clear Edge.

    Market forces would evlove these settlement patterns if location variable costs were fairly allocated and citizens, enterprises and governments made intelligent choices that reflect their long term interests.

    For the quantification — the fact that there is plenty of space for these places within the current logical choice for the Clear Edge, see “Five Critical Realities that Shape the Future.”

    EMR

  17. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Jim W:

    Now I see the problem you had with the original post!

    That paragraph should read:

    Over the period 1984 to 2004 (dates are from memory) there was no significant difference between the rate of congestion growth and the level of expenditure, or the lane miles of roadway added, in regions that added a lot of roads and those that spent little (or added few lane miles of roadway.

    The variables that mattered were size (big is getting worse faster) and rate of population / job growth (prosperous is getting worse faster). Houston is a good example of throwing good money after bad.

    Sorry for the confusion.

    EMR

  18. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    I can see that we have two value systems at work here. One system assumes that coordinating origins and destinations is the reasonability of a “big brother.” The other value system assumes that correcting current zoning and infrastructure investment policies will change the direction and lead to a better future.

    “There is no evidence that I know of that that increasing the proximity of housing to jobs …would better coordinate travel origins and destinations.

    Who, exactly, is going to coordinate my origins and destinations, other than me?

    Even assuming that it could be done, and that people would stand for it there is no evidence that it will not be just as impractical, short sighted, and expensive to influence land use patterns as an alternative to increasing road capacity.”

    One change needed is the elimination of stale zoning that encourages SPRAWL development. Zoning requiring residential lots larger then an acre is always a bad idea.

    Another change is allocating transportation dollars to providing faster trips instead of longer trips. The current formulas favor more lane miles where costs are less and fewer lane miles where transportation demand is highest.

    The other thing I see is two approaches to a solution. One is to tear down existing housing before it has reached the end of its useful life. The other is to build better in the future.

    My proposals are always to build better in the future.

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Who, exactly, is going to coordinate my origins and destinations, other than me?”

    “My proposals are always to build better in the future.”

    I’ll sign on to redevelopment of existing..

    One thing that folks do not appreciate.

    In order to build/re-develop on a community basis – as opposed to a project basis is that you need BIG developers … who can actually handle massive projects either stand alone or in collaboration with out developers.

    In other words, the development community itself has to be an integral part of the strategy.

    Even for new development – the jurisdiction planning entity cannot develop land-use plans that say where the barber shops will go or even where the METRO or intermodal facility will go unless there is a developer willing to step forward to do it.

    The developer has options also.

    Why take on a massive and complicated and financially risky project when they could continue to make good profits from a relatively safe business of building what many folks want anyhow?

    This is why I am intersted in the PATH from concept to implementation.

    For Low Impact Development – there are MODEL ordinances that implement the concept.

    They don’t guarantee it – but they provide a viable path.

  20. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    This is as good a place as any to relate what happened when the Spotsylvania BOS discussed putting an Affordable Housing element in their Comprehensive Plan – as required by the Va Code.

    The long and short of it was that out of about 20 things the planning department suggest that could be done – 19 of them involved using tax dollars.

    One of them – grant proffer exemptions – flew about as far as a duck would past a blind with 20 guns aimed at it.

    Other’s wanted to grant reduced water/sewer hookups.

    At the end – it was decided that the existing words… of being “supportive” of the concept was as far as they were going to go.

    Their attitude was that it’s not the taxpayers job to pay for affordable housing.

    thoughts?

  21. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    In order to build and redevelop on a community basis, you need big developers.

    OK, so let us, as conservationists, stop bashing the big developers as being the instigators for more roads, and as creating the need for infrastructure that is bankrupting the early adopters, and try to figure out what it is that will get them on our side.

    Like profits, maybe.

    As for affordable housing, when there is enough housing, some of it will become affordable.

    The question isn’t how do we prevent growth, it is how do we promote growth, do it in an environmentally responsible way, make it beautiful, make it in a way people actually willl want to live, and still make it profitable?

    I think Jim Bacon is right: we should move away from zoning regulations and towards building and community standards. As long as you meet the standard, the permit is guaranteed. No public hearings required, or needed.

  22. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    A mobility and access sytem that makes people happy and safe is one that leaves when they want, travels at a reasonable speed, and doesn’t cost a lot.

    I don;t see tolls adding much to that equation.

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “A mobility and access sytem that makes people happy and safe is one that leaves when they want, travels at a reasonable speed, and doesn’t cost a lot.”

    Ray – who decides if happy and safe and reasonable doesn’t “cost a lot”?

    TOLLS pay for what people want – based on what they are willing to pay for it.

    Taxes don’t do that.

    If they did – we’d not have a system where almost no one would agree that we do have a mobility and access system that satisfies.

    The correct question is – are YOU satisfied with what you bought?

    If you are then what is the problem?

    If you are not then is the problem that you are not happy because you chose wrong?

Leave a Reply

Read More