Congestion Pricing for the Washington Region

The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board has issued its final report on value pricing (congestion pricing) for the Washington metropolitan area: “Evaluating Alternative Scenarios for a Network of Variably Priced Highway Lanes in the Metropolitan Washington Region.”

From my quick perusal, the report does not make any recommendations. Instead, it lays out three congestion pricing scenarios for the region and lists topics for future investigation. I don’t have time to dig into the document today, but I post it here for the reference of those who would like to examine it.

Hat tip to Jim Wamsley, who writes as follows:

Some selected quotations from Professor Vickrey’s 1959 presentation to Congress provide an excellent starting point and context for the work reported in this study.

“Under urban conditions we cannot have both free flowing rush hour traffic and the absence of user charges or other constraints on highway use. One or the other of these desiderata must yield.”

“Recent technological developments in electronics have placed within reach and within reasonable cost the possibility of assessing against the users of metropolitan streets and highways a set of charges that can be tailored about as closely to the costs occasioned by the actual usage as these costs themselves can be estimated. This can be done without interrupting or even slowing the flow of traffic, and at a cost that will be minute compared to the savings produced in inducing a more economical and less congested pattern of traffic flow and a more economical apportionment of traffic between the various available modes of transportation. It would, moreover, go far toward solving the financial problems associated with the provision of the expensive facilities required to provide adequate transportation in a modern metropolis.”

“Pricing of highway use will thus make it possible to provide at reasonable cost uncongested and speedy transportation anytime, anywhere, and for anyone for whom the occasion is sufficiently urgent to warrant the payment of the corresponding charge. Without pricing, it is very likely that during the rush hours this degree of freedom of movement would not be available to anyone at any price.”

“It is accordingly of the utmost importance, in evaluating plans for traffic facilities, to consider the various ways by which their use may be suitably controlled.”

Almost fifty years later we now take up again the basic principles enunciated by Professor Vickrey and many other distinguished economists, planners and engineers, and present them for public consideration in a new context.”

Eric Weiss with the Washington Post gives his spin on the report here.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You left out the link to the major Sunday article. I didn’t read all of it, but the gist seemed to be that congestion tolling is nothing but a neocon conspiriacy to sell off public assets.

    No doubt this is a liberal Post take on what is really a perfectly well intentioned and well reasoned raid on our pockets.

    One official source in the article pointed out that privately owned and operated tollways will be more expensive than publicly owned ones.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Actually the story:

    “Letting the Market Drive Transportation: Bush Officials Criticized for Privatization” and the Weis piece both ran on Monday 17 March.

  3. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    The Vickrey quote should get Jim W. a big prize. Great work!!!

    The problem is:

    Dysfunctional human settlement patterns not moake tolling — public or private — impossible in both economic and physical terms.

    The cost would be huge with dwindling resources who will pay? If it were built, only the top of the economic food chain could afford to use it.

    In 1959 it could have worked, not now.

    Lets all take a deep breath and admit it, the Autonomobile is a dead end.

    EMR

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Wrong date but RH is right, the story is worth reading.

    So is EMR

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    HOT lanes could generate over 2 Billion dollars annually whereas the butt ugly Transportation Authority would struggle to produce 300 million.

    Not that 300 million is chump change either.

    Here’s an interesting quote that the WaPo story extracted from the study:

    “So let’s look for some more,” Kirby said, referring to tolls planned for Virginia and Maryland. “But the absolute key is to plow every penny of tolls back into transit.”

    🙂

    Let’s see. … 2.5 billion per year… in two years you have enough to build Metro to Dulles…

    yaaaaahooooo

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How does that work?

    2,000,000,000 divided by 2000 cars per hour (you only got 1 HOT lane) is 1,000,000 divided by four peak hours (two in and two out) is 250,000 divided by 200 days is $1250 toll. Even if it is twice as many users, it is still $625 toll.

    You think you are going to raise $2billion out of 8000 people when you can’t get $300 million out of the whole state?

    What was that you said about some people paying for the benefits of others?

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The autonomobile will change drastically, and it needs to. It may turn into a super Segway. But it is not going to be uninvented and disappear.

    RH

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “2,000,000,000 divided by 2000 cars per hour (you only got 1 HOT lane) is 1,000,000 divided by four peak hours (two in and two out) is 250,000 divided by 200 days is $1250 toll. Even if it is twice as many users, it is still $625 toll.

    You think you are going to raise $2billion out of 8000 people when you can’t get $300 million out of the whole state?”

    now.. that’s YOUR analysis…..

    wanna go read theirs now?

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Sure. Got a Link?

    You do agree that 2000 per hour per lane is optimistic, right?

    I’m assuming we are talking about more HOT lanes than now on the board, and that’s where the difference is. So oif we had ten new HOT lanes, charging for every possibe access to the city, and all the cars are paying cars, no free carpools, then we can get down to $6.25 toll, and we can move then 80,000 vehicles.

    Since they are paying vehicles that means 80,000 passengers, unless HOV means three or more. Call it 100,000 passengers figuring some will travel two to a car.

    At $0.75 per passenger mile you could haul that many people on buses for $330 million. Even if you take Bacon’s recommendation and provide super dudper deluxe buses, it might be $660 million.

    Why would you want to take $2.5 billion out of the economy (no new taxes), when you could do it for a third as much.

    Oh, that’s right, its so you can support the profits of a private company in addition to paying for VDOT “oversight”.

    And probbly a foreign company, at that.

    —————————

    You won’t get $2.5 billion for rail to Tysons out of this. That $2.5 billion is gross, not net.

    RH

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well.. actually the links were provided in the original blog entry.

    The report is 110 pages.. and the WaPo article summarizes …

    It’s a separate analysis than yours or anyone else here… and it’s based on….

    “…the idea of variably priced road facilities with enhanced bus
    services for the Washington region is not new: in 1959, Professor William Vickrey of Columbia University presented a statement to the Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems of the US Congress which advocated just such a set of policies.
    Professor Vickrey’s presentation was subsequently published in 1994

    …. In 1996, Professor
    Vickrey received the Nobel Price in Economics for this and other pioneering work on pricing.”

    Imagine that RH.. this guy won a Nobel Prize for his work in Economics….

    read the study .. fella…

    then come back and blather..

  11. Groveton Avatar

    Anytime you see the term “value pricing” – you should hear alarms sounding in your head. The concept seems simple – people who see the most “value” will pay the highest price. Then comes the all important question of risk. Those who propose “value pricing” have to deal with the risk that higher prices will cut demand which will render the whole program unworkable. Or, the technology won’t work at scale. Or, the populance will decide that it’s wrong for effective auto transport to be afforded only to the rich.

    Who bears the financial consequences for these risks?

    Let me answer that question with a question – who is currently bearing the financial consequences for sub-prime loans?

    Look in the mirror my fellow underwriters.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here’s a quick location variable POLL:

    Would you rather:

    1. – pay 25 cents higher gas tax to buy more roads for NoVa

    2. – let NoVa drivers pay tolls

    🙂

    I rest my case.

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    You know the really DANGEROUS RISK with regard to HOT Lanes..

    .. if they work.. they may well force a reconsideration of what optimal settlement patterns are..

    Because with HOT lanes, folks WILL be paying much more of their location variable costs for mobility and access…

    AND… in the process.. they’ll also be paying for expanding transit… across the region…

    AND.. many more WILL be abandoning their large private vehicle in favor of riding on shared vehicles.

    AND .. yes.. some will start to look at the trade offs between driving further out for lower home prices.. but then having to add back the monthly toll costs…

    So.. maybe you save $500 a month on a mortgage by driving 100 miles a day – round trip – but the toll cost will be $600 a month.

    .. read the report.. if it doesn’t do anything else. .it should convince you that this is not some flash-in-the-pan concept..

  14. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    I had almost given up on you.

    This post suggests you are getting it!!!!

    Now add the other 40 +/- location varible costs…

    By the way you do the list, it will mean much more to you than if I do it.

    I have explained several times why I do not trot out a list each time the topic comes up.

    EMR

  15. Michael Ryan Avatar
    Michael Ryan

    Obviously I’m missing something here when the first thing that occurs to me is to locate my business in Loudoun, Clarke, Orange, or somewhere else on the periphery to avoid the tolls for employees and customers.

    Which brings us back to the mileage tax to spread the burden evenly, or what many of us old-timers call a “gas tax”.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Last time it was 35+ location variable costs. It is still nonsense. You trotted out the list once before, and the nonsense was obvious. If you just pick 5 or 10, it might be believable.

    —————————–

    So, I read some of the 110 pages. As I surmised the plan is to use far more HOT lanes than in the current proposal. If they get all they ask for, then their numbers are plausible.

    Their numbers include taking over the existing HOV lanes as well as building a new one. And they want the GW nad Clara BArton Parkways. And they count the ICC.

    It’s a big wish list. Where is the money to be paid for taking over valuable public assets already paid for by the public?

    None of the proposed projects are expected to pay for themselves, unless they get to charge for existing roads, and pay very little. There won’t be any money for Metro to Tysons coming out of this.

    I didn’t understand the exact phrasing or context, but one of the “benefits” was that employment centers would move. They think they will move closer to the terminuses. I think they will move out of town and avoid the expense to their employees (or themselves).

    Larry assumes that a) jobs won;t move. and b) people will move closer to the jobs to pay less tolls.

    I assume that a)close in home prices will rise to reflect the tolls and higher fuel costs, and b) people will still make rational choices about how far to travel to save how much money.

    Overall, the rational r radius may shrink a little. This will make more r radii plausible (more places) because it maximizes the amount of the most valuable spaces.

    When more people abandon their cars to ride transit, then how will transit be subsidized? The price of transit will rise to compete with the cost of autonomobiles, and they will still retain their relative advantages.

    Overall, costs will be higher (lets just be honest and call it new taxes), and the cost will come directly out of the economy.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton is right. We are guaranteeing the loans, already, so there is no risk to the financiers. The operators get paid for building their project. IF operating it is profitable, good. If not, they walk away, like a bad mortgage.

    Except, in this case the contract will be written in reverse. We will still have to pay off their construction loan. Or, if we are lucky, the plan will succeed and we get to pay for the roads, plus profit on roads we already built and paid for.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Under urban conditions we cannot have both free flowing rush hour traffic and the absence of user charges or other constraints on highway use. One or the other of these desiderata must yield.”

    Well, yeah. Under present urban conditions – even those existing since 1959.

    Road pricing will change the urban condition.

    “Recent technological developments in electronics have placed within reach and within reasonable cost the possibility of assessing against the users of metropolitan streets and highways a set of charges that can be tailored about as closely to the costs occasioned by the actual usage as these costs themselves can be estimated.”

    And what about rural or non-urban streets, where as EMR notes, the costs per use are REALLY out of control? You want to do this universally, then I’m ready to sign up. But why charge more to use the places that are already the most expensive? This is contra productive, if you think urban areas are our conservation salvation.

    “This can be done without interrupting or even slowing the flow of traffic,…”

    This is an outright lie. The whole purpose is to interrupt some traffic, so the streets will be less congested. We simply ignore those costs.

    “…and at a cost that will be minute compared to the savings produced in inducing a more economical and less congested pattern of traffic flow “

    That part might be true. At least he admits there will be a cost. No one, as far as I can tell, is making a serious attempt to figure out what it might be.

    “…[and] a more economical apportionment of traffic between the various available modes of transportation.”

    Economical for who? Why is it economical for auto users to pay tolls to support even higher subsidies for transit? If you read the articles in question, you see that one of the reasons for promoting HOT lanes and other tolling systems is because DOT does not want to provide further support to “costly transit systems”.

    Surely there is a value to autonomobile devotees to pay for other people to use transit. Now lets figure out whatt that value really is, and let the autonomobilists pay an economical price, and no more.

    “It would, moreover, go far toward solving the financial problems associated with the provision of the expensive facilities required to provide adequate transportation in a modern metropolis.”

    Like I said, road pricing will go far to change the present urban landscape. By making the expensive provision of facilities even more expensive.

    “Pricing of highway use will thus make it possible to provide at reasonable cost uncongested and speedy transportation anytime, anywhere, and for anyone for whom the occasion is sufficiently urgent to warrant the payment of the corresponding charge. “

    The city will be reserved for the wealthy, And everyone else will go someplace else.

    “Without pricing, it is very likely that during the rush hours this degree of freedom of movement would not be available to anyone at any price.”

    Kind of an oxymoron. Without pricing there is no price. Except the congestion and pollution tax.

    “It is accordingly of the utmost importance, in evaluating plans for traffic facilities, to consider the various ways by which their use may be suitably controlled.”

    It’s all about money and power. A command and control economy. I can hardly wait.

    Send my nobel prize to the farm. The farm could use it.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Before somebody jumps all over my case, I’ll say it again. I’m on your side: in a general way I agree with this argument. But I can’t help but see the holes in it. Blame it on my father. To me, making such an argument is like trying to paddle upstream with a sieve.

    We can ignore the holes, paint over them, refute them lamely, repeat our old aruments until the big lie condition takes over, or we can look for better arguments.

    RH

  20. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    The long comment by RH at 9:58 based on a confusion of cost and value can be illustrated for one example.

    “Surely there is a value to autonomobile devotees to pay for other people to use transit. Now lets figure out whatt that value really is, and let the autonomobilists pay an economical price, and no more.

    Send my nobel prize to the farm. The farm could use it.”

    The free market is based on a free choice for suppliers and a free choice for customers or many customers and many suppliers. Go here for a discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

    The free market assumes supplies match demand and when they do not do not match the price will increase. In a “command and control economy” prices are determined not by supply and demand but by fiat or an arbitrary measure. The highway budget is an arbitrary measure for the price the autonomobilists should pay.

    Value pricing replaces the highway budget with a demand price. When the road becomes congested, supply is limited, the price goes up. This is basic free market economics. The excess income is invested in increasing supply of transportation. In high volume locations transit creates the highest return on this investment. Again this is free market economics. Increasing the highway budget is an arbitrary “command and control economy” approach that favors the autonomobilists over the market solution.

    As for the Nobel prize, the farm will benefit from the free market price of energy and water. As energy goes out of sight and irrigation water is value priced, the farm near the market will increase in value. No Nobel prize, just free market economics.

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well I give credit for taking the time to actually read the report.

    But Jim W has got it right.

    There is utter and chronic..unrepentant .. incorrigible confusion over the super simple concept of supply and demand vs command/control economics.

    No Nobel Prize for those that refuse to understand basic economic concepts!

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Public transit does not exist in a free market. I don’t see how your comments apply.

    Even when there are markets, we ususally (at least nowadays) consider that markets are not perfect, and externalities are not accounted for.

    One externality is the benefit automobile drivers get when others use transit. Drivers should expect and be willing to pay for the savings in drive time that is afforded by those that take transit.

    But, they shouldn’t expect to pay any more than that value is really worth. It is my observation that this value is typically oversold by transit proponents, but I can’t back up this idea because there is very little data available.

    I just see a problem in the idea that we are going to generate enormous cash flows on the backs of automobile drivers to support transit operations, at the same time we expect these cash flows to substantially reduce driving and cause jobs to move.

    That seems to me a plan that, if not doomed to failure, is likely to yield unexpected results.

    ———————————–

    “When the road becomes congested, supply is limited, the price goes up.”

    Yep, and in a free market, the higher price produces more supply. That isn’t going to happen in this case, and it isn’t even the intent. Describing this as a free market situation is just laughable.

    The one thing that is true is that the supply will be limited. Those that can’t afford the price will have no supply, and no other choices either, other than the surface streets. Cut-through restrictions will be pending on them.

    So the statement that this will be done without interupting or even slowing traffic is an outright lie. It is true only if you consider just the REMAINING traffic, and not all the traffic that you purposely diverted.

    This is not going to replace the highway budget with a demand price. The costs of maintaining the roads will be what they are. Those people that have uncrowded roads and excellent service will pay no tolls. In a free market you pay more when you have to compete against higher demand, and you also pay more when you get a better product or service. That isn’t happening here.

    Those people that can afford it and have high value business will pay the tolls gladly, but they are not paying for road usage or more road supply: they are paying for the privilege of excluding others.

    Everyone else will pay the congestion and pollution toll, just as before. The idea that this will reduce congestion is false. Delay opr move it – maybe. And in addition, they get to pay for insurance to the financiers, and some of the roads that will now be the exclusive domain of the toll payers, and private enterprise.

    In a free market, I seriously doubt they would voluntarily make such a choice. So we are going to “consider the various ways by which [road] use may be suitably controlled.”

    Sounds a lot like like command and control to me.

    I don’t really care, one way or another. I just hate to see a phony sales pitch passed off as reasoned argumentation. Without promoting one version of this or the other, let’s just consider what the TOTAL effect will be for all concerned. If it turns out to be all positive, all roses and bubbles for everybody, then we will have pulled off a miracle.

    Until then, I believe that anyone who says this is all good is mistaken, at the least.

    ——————————–

    “The farm will benefit from the free market price of energy and water.”

    Not really. This example didn’t apply to me, but it was fun to watch, and instructive.

    There was a recent case in Fauquier county in which some people proposed far reaching new restrictions on some landowners as a means of protecting the watershed to the reservoir.

    The argument given was that if these landowners were fortunate enough to own one of “our” most valueable resources, then they should expect to be stewrds of it.

    True enough. But, if the 20,000 or so people that use the reservoir expect to have stewards, then in a free market, they should expect to pay them.

    Otherwise, they have not got stewards, but slaves.

    So, what happened here? Suddenly some people wnated to put a higher value on the water supply, along with the costs that entails. But, they wanted someone else to bear those costs at no expense to themselves.

    The county declined to act on this proposal. I do not know the reasons, but I suspect some powerful lawsuits were in the offing.

    Yes, the farm will benefit from the value of water, but only if the community agrees to put a price on it and pay for it. Right now, they can get it for free by simply issuing orders.

    I hope your claim comes true someday, but I don’t see it happening in my lifetime.

    ——————————-

    “the farm near the market will increase in value. No Nobel prize, just free market economics.”

    Really? There ought ot be a lot of valuable farms downtown, then.

    What really happens is that the farm that can produce the most at the lowest total system price increases in value. A big part of that price is the value of the land, and part of it is how far you have to ship. The more the land is worth, the less profitable the farming operation.

    Which is why you don’t see farms downtown. Simple economics.

    RH

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Yep, and in a free market, the higher price produces more supply. That isn’t going to happen in this case, and it isn’t even the intent. Describing this as a free market situation is just laughable.”

    see this is what I mean.

    higher prices on a scarce commodity do not mean more supply in response, ESPECIALLY is the supply itself is limited or diminishing and even more scarce.

    Besides what you are paying for is reliability of transit time..not an unlimited supply or availability.

    and .. again.. in this kind of a situation.. no one owes you lower prices or more supply…

    instead.. you are offered something at a price and you choose, along with lots of others, how much it is worth to you.

    It might well be.. as some folks say.. that gasoline at $3.50 a gallon is “outrageous” but try saying “unacceptable”.

    Gsoline in Fort Liard in the Northwest Territories is $5 bucks a gallon and you GLADLY pay it because it is worth much more than the alternative…

    You have that same exact choice with regard to HOT lanes…

    you pay what it worth TO YOU and you always have the option of saying that it is not worth it to you or find a better/different deal.

    That’s what supply/demand is…

    you don’t get to decide what supply/demand is.. you only get to decide whether you want to pay or not.

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “ESPECIALLY is the supply itself is limited “

    By definition, if the supply is limited, then it is no longer a free market.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “no one owes you lower prices or more supply”

    I never said they did.

    But in a free market, higher prices will result in more supply, frequently to the point that prices fall lower than before.

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “you are offered something at a price and you choose, along with lots of others, how much it is worth to you.”

    And the people with uncongested roads get much better service and pay nothing extra in the way of tolls. They don’t have to choose how much their roads are worth, because they are fully provided.

    In other places, we deliberately refuse to provide, and then propose to charge extra for the benefit.

  27. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    A couple of clarifications.

    If you follow my link you will find a discussion of the free market with fixed supply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

    A better approach then “Public transit does not exist in a free market” is to look at the question of transportation and human settlement patterns as a unified issue.

    When free market approaches are applied to the whole range of transportation and human settlement patterns issues to provide a unified solution you reach conclusions far different from the current “command and control” or fiat approach to highway funding.

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m not the one trying to sell something here.

    If you want to sell to me then show me the upside, show me the downside, and show me resonably conclusively why the upside is sufficiently better to make the downside worthwhile.

    As long as you merely say that all is sweetness and light, I’m not convinced.

    I propose some problem with the plan. I might be mistaken, and it’s not a real problem, but generally, once stated, then it is an issue.

    You can ignore the issue. You can claim it isn’t an issue. You can attack me. You can attack my credentials. You can claim I have an ulterior motive. You can re-state the other issues redundantly, and go the big lie route.

    I don’t care. I’m not the one promoting something. As far as I’m concerned, once the issue is out there, then it is still an issue.

    Once you accept and incorporate it into your argument, and if you can still shoe the plus side outweighs the minus side – then you get my respect.

    Otherwise, its just another saleman selling snake oil. Maybe he is a well intentioned, environmentally green salesman, but he is still selling snake oil and not true solutions.

    Wamsley says this is a free market situation. Nice sales pitch.

    I say it is not because a) there is no ability or intention to increase supply as a free market would. b) the source of supply is a government monopoly. c) the source of intrinsic demand (job sites) is also controlled by government d) the government monopoly is selling a “product” in one place (a place where it is cheap in terms of ROI) and giving away a better product in other places (where it is expensive in terms of ROI) for free.

    You can say whatever you want as long as you want, but if you don’t accept and address the issues, if the only tactic is to refute the issues and the authors, then I can’t take you seriously.

    We have a situation where we wish to force autos to pay for all their externalities, and we sell this by simply saying that the user should pay for ALL of his full costs, and we call this a free market because he can buy or not, when that isn’t what it means at all. We claim that a handfull of the very autos we wish to exterminate are going to provide all the funds for for a bunch of other stuff that is NOT user pays, and we don’t see any of this as an intellectual house of cards.

    You can do whatever you want, but you are the ones doing the selling, and I’m simply telling you that I’m not sold yet.

    I suggest that whenn you are trying to sell something, you don’t start by calling the customer stupid.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ” look at the question of transportation and human settlement patterns as a unified issue. “

    now you are talking sense.

    “When free market approaches are applied to the whole range of transportation and human settlement patterns “

    Never mind the free market “approaches”. You have already quoted people who plainly state that what they want is control. You have lost my sense of trust here. What I need to see is that control is managed equitably, and I don’t see it.

    Not even close.

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Free market: “a market in which supply and demand are unregulated except by competition policy and property rights”

    That seems clear to me.

    You can define it any way you want, but you can’t sell me on your idea with a definition I think is wrong or different from generally accepted.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What this is, is a monopoly (the government in this case), doing what monopolists do: charging more because they can get away with it.

    And selling it as if it was some kind of a good deal, when it is actually a power grab for more control.

    The govenment is not charging more in other places, because they have not yet created an artificial and overheated demand through land use controls that favor business and cause the congestion they are now tolling for relief from.

    Economy, Environment, Equality.

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You want free trade?

    Put in the HOT lanes and give everyone a certain number of free passes, which they can use, buy, or sell at will.

    Everyone is going to pay for the HOT lanes anyway, might as well let the (probably minimal) benefit be shared equally.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Put in the HOT lanes and give everyone a certain number of free passes, which they can use, buy, or sell at will.”

    There’s an idea. The one thing that has come out of all the arguments on HOT lanes and congestion pricing is an assumption that pricing is the only way to allocate the congested space.

    Perhaps a simpler solution would simply be to allocate based on quota (cards, stickers, electronics, whatever) with a pricing method to take care of the balance. e.g. Give all applicants for the congested region 3 or 4 passes per week, depending on demand, and then on other days the user would have to utilize transit, carpool, telecommute, etc. This would deal with the “Lexus lane” argument and with those who can’t utilize transit on a daily basis. For those from outside the region tolls could be implemented during peak times at the borders near Fredricksburg and Warrenton and those corresponding in MD.

    Since it’s been shown that traffic dropoffs of 10-20% during the July/August timeframe are enough to get “all” lanes freeflowing, this type of solution would be superior to having only some lanes freeflowing.

    BTW: Every other day driving privelages are common in a number of other cities worldwide.

    ZS

  34. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: free market and scarce supply

    There can be a completely free market for Elvis memorabilia or 8000 carat diamonds but no amount of money will increase the supply of either.

    .. and yes.. it is STILL a free market.

    so we have some fundamental .. and continual and chronic confusion here as usual.

    free market does guarantee an increased supply … it only means that the market will determine the price.

    So in a congestion pricing scenario – what you are selling IS .. NOT an unlimited supply of congestion-free trips…

    in fact, you are selling a limited number of trips…

    and in the process, you are doing the same exact thing that would be done with Elvis memorabilia or 800 carat diamonds..

    … the supply will not increase in response to higher prices…

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “and yes.. it is STILL a free market.”

    Not according to the accepted definition.

    What you describe is a constrained market. If the supply curve slopes downward instead of upward, it is not a free market: by widely accepted definition.

    In medicine, a free market would allow more people to become doctors, in HOT lanes a free market would allow more lanes.

    That is the definition of a free market. Get used to it.

    You can pull and EMR and choose to redefine it, if it makes you feel better politically, but it won’t help your sales pitch. Anyone who knows the definition will think you are an idiot, and the sales pitch loses credibility.

    Even so, when the price of elvis memorabilia gets high enough, some people will stop hoarding or collecting, and more will be available on the market, even if the total supply is stagnant.

    (In the case of housing, restricting supply through development regulations leads to gentrification of (formerly) poor areas. Housing remains pretty affordable in the fast-growing states of Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas, because land-use planners have not yet seized power in those states. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser has shown that land-use regulation not only drives up housing prices, it makes them more volatile too — more prone to crashes.)

    The same idea is not true with roads themselves, because no one owns them to sell. No more of HOT lane will come on the market from any hoarded source. You can drive users away, but you have created no new value in the process.

    The other difference is that if Elvis memorabilia is too high, people won’t buy it. But if the price of one road usage is too high, then people won’t buy use of that particular road. They still need to get their work and errands done, so then much of the use may be displaced to other locations – maybe, Georia, North Carolina, and Texas.

    The new “supply” then will come from other currently underused roads. THAT is what toll lanes and congestion pricing will do, but if we choose to do that, we can do it a lot more cheaply than through congestion pricing.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “History has witnessed considerable controversy over the prices of goods whose supply is fixed in the short run. Critics of market prices have argued that rising prices for these types of goods serve no economic purpose because they cannot bring forth additional supply, and thus serve merely to enrich the owners of the goods at the expense of the rest of society.”

    In this case the owner is the government which will enrich itself and those that can afford the price of HOT lanes – at the expense of the rest of society.

    RH

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The easy way out of this is to simply admit the truth. The real purpose of tolls is to allocate the goods to their highest value use. Those people with the most valuable business will pay the tolls, and others won’t.

    If we can agree that this is the real value and the real purpose behind tolls, and that this is a reasonable economic goal; then your argument for tolls makes sense to me, but not with the pious and mistaken mumbo jumbo previously stated.

  38. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Those people with the most valuable business will pay the tolls, and others won’t.”

    Who decides what business is valuable enough to pay the toll?

    Isn’t it the person who pays the toll?

    do you think that what you think is valuable .. someone else may not.. and vice-versa?

    see this is why they call it a ‘free market” because you are free to decide how much something is worth to you….

    you can choose to NOT do the transaction if it is not worth it to you.

    if you think a market is not free unless the supply is infinitely expandable to meet demand.. I do seriously wonder how you reconcile that idea.. in a world where virtually anything that is sold is not available in unlimited quantities.

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    A fundamental part of free market theory is that suppliers are free to produce more or less, in response to market signals.

    If you don’t have that condition, you don’t have a free market, and you cannot use free market theory.

    In your example the user is free not to buy what is offered at the price offered, but he cannot influence the market. “…raising prices for these types of goods serve no economic purpose because they cannot bring forth additional supply.”

    It is government sponsored rationing. Since the government sets the price, irrespective of what the market would be willing to buy IF MORE SUPPLY COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE, then it is the government that indirectly decides what business is worth the price.

    In a free market, if demand goes up, the market will be out of balance, until suppliers can respond. Temporarily the price will be very high, but it will drop back as more product becomes available. In this case the price will be very high, compared to what a free market would provide, and the market will be permanently out of balance.

    Which is why it is the government that decides what business is worthwhile, in this case: because the free market condition is not in play.

    In your example the user is free to pay the govt price or not. In a free market example he would be free to pay the govt price, somebody else’s price, or not. and somebody else would be free to offer a higher or lower cost, for a better or worse product.

    And, in this case the government will use the excess, gained from the artificially high price that can be sustained through lack of competition — to buy Metro tickets for someone else.

    And yoou have the unmitigated gall to claim THIS is a free market.

    RH

  40. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “In a free market, if demand goes up, the market will be out of balance, until suppliers can respond. Temporarily the price will be very high, but it will drop back as more product becomes available. In this case the price will be very high, compared to what a free market would provide, and the market will be permanently out of balance.”

    let’s take a simple example.. ummm… (you obviously did not consider the Elvis memorabilia as valid)

    how about OIL?

    tell me again.. how we get more oil and avoid the “temporary” price increases?

    If oil keeps going up in price, does that mean that the buying and selling of oil is not a ‘free market”?

    do you think that anything that is not totally elastic with respect to supply and demand is not traded in a “free market”?

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “how about OIL?”

    Two years ago you could drive around texas and see idle oil wells. If you go there today, you will see those donkey engines running again.

    Why? Because at a higher price the operators could afford to run them to extract oil they could not afford to get out at lower prices.

    Oil isn’t agood example either. When it is $500 a barrel you will find we “discover” a lot more oil, even if we have to make it from scratch.

    Go get you economics book out. When you have an increas in demand prices go up out ofproportion to what the market will ultimately support. But as new suppies come on line that initial price spike goes down – some. It doesn’t necessarily and usually doesn’t go back to where it was. Therefore the new price (at a higher level of supply) is higher than the old price, but not as high as the spike.

    So yes, the oil goes up in price, and that means two things: more suppliers can provide it at that price, and fewer consumers want it at that price. Which means the market is now balanced. That is a free market, even if oil will eventually run out, and even if the price is climbing.

    In the case of the HOT lane, there is no additonal supply at a higher price and it is NOT a free market. There will only be 2000 slots per hour, no matter what the price.

    I don’t make this stuff up, it is all in the book. Only charlatans spin this to make it something it isn’t.

    If either the price is high enough or demand low enough, some slots will go unused, but you can’t save them for later. The slope of price vs slots and slope of demand vs slots won’t be the same. That’s what brings up the issue of whether you manage for income or manage for throughput.

    From society’s point of view it’s bst to move the most cars so that people can go about their buisness. But from the operators point of view, that may mean the price is too low. He could make more money for himself by resricting flow with higher prices, and to heck with society.

    This is exactly analogous to a guy polluting: he is making more money and society bears the cost.

    How do you suppose the contractor’s operating license will be written? max through put or max revenue?

    ——————————

    There is such a thing as inferior goods. Usually when you have mmore money you buy more of a product. But some products are the ones you buy more of when you have less money. You buy more suits when you have money and more jeans and t shirts when you don’t have money.

    It doesn’t mean they are cheap or shoddy t-shirts, just that certain market conditions apply. You get those when you can’t get something else.

    HOT lanes are going to create a new class of “inferior” products, and those products will increase their sales when sales of HOT lane slots go out of sight. North Carolina, Albuquerque, and Texas are growing quite nicely right now, and for similar reasons.

    We will see more businesses operating outside the toll zone, and more traffic on roads that are untolled.

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Example from today’s news:

    “An untimely confluence of bad weather, flawed energy policies, low stockpiles and voracious growth in Asia’s appetite has driven international spot prices of coal up by 50 percent or more in the past five months, surpassing the escalation in oil prices.”

    “Meanwhile mining companies are enjoying a windfall. Freight cars in Appalachia are brimming with coal for export, and old coal mines in Japan have been reopened or expanded.”

    Mines that previously could not run profitably are suddenly ramping up to go back into production. Spot prices on coal are very high right now, but they will drop back as more production comes on line.

    You can expect the same thing with American corn. At $6.50 a bushel a lot of places can grow corn that cannot do so when the price is $4.00 a bushel.

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Spot prices may not stay down, though:

    “World consumption of coal has grown 30 percent in the past six years, twice as much as any other energy source. About two-thirds of the fuel supplies electricity plants, and just under a third heads to industrial users, mostly steel and concrete makers.

    If high prices last, that would raise the cost of U.S. electricity, half of which is generated by coal-fired powered plants. “

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In the developing world, where growth is paramount, there is no thought of shutting off coal, especially when, on average, a person in China emits about one-sixth and an Indian less than one-tenth as many greenhouse gases as “an American “Coal will continue to be king in India. There is no way out,” said Kumar, of the Confederation of Indian Industries. “The other choice is asking the country to stay poor. . . . The question is, are we going to allow poverty or allow a little bit of pollution?”

    One sixths as much, per person. And yet China uses more coal than the U.S., Japan, and All of Europe combined.

    Have a nice day.

    RH

  45. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    you know RH.. they don’t pay us by the word….

    was there a (hopefully short and concise) answer to the limited supply question?

    If something is limited in supply, does that fact preclude the buying and selling of that limited supply in a “free market”?

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If the market is not capable of responding by providing more supply, then it is, by definition, not what economists define as a free market.

    If there is a limited supply, then the market may still find a way to respond with more supply, although the price incentive to do so will be greater.

    The HOT lane example is NOT anything like a free market. The fact that you are “free” to choose not to buy what is offered, does not make it a free market.

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You get paid?

    No wonder I can’t catch a break around here. You are subsidized and I’m not.

    RH

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re speculation in commodities. Just amend the federal tax code to require that, in order to deduct the full cost of a commodities future, the buyer must take delivery of at least 80% of the commodities traded. Otherwise, one can deduct only 50% of the cost of purchasing the futures. I also suggest a rule that would permit a party that grew, mined, pumped, etc. a volume of commodities equal to 80% of the futures contracts could deduct 100% of the purchase price of the futures contracts.

    This would permit farmers, miners, oil companies, etc. to hedge in the market, but would put the speculators out of business.

    Let’s get investment dollars back into activities that actually create something.

    TMT

  49. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    No RH.. I don’t get paid by the word though I suspect some readers of this blog would pray for me to have to pay by the word…

    🙂

    so back to the question..

    you said…”…there is a limited supply, then the market may still find a way to respond with more supply…”

    I’d like to pin you down on this.

    What ..IF.. there is NO extra supply or worse.. the existing supply is decreasing…

    would the buying and selling of that limited-available item be considered a “free-market” as long as the buyer had the option of not buying something they considered not worth the price?

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    No. Economists only define it as a free market situation when suppliers can respond to higher prices with more supply.

    If your only option is NOT buying something at the given price, then that means that you have decided you “cannot afford it”. In that case, you are not in ANY market, let alone a free market.

    The way you have the question stated, the only way you could NOT have a free market is if you are required to buy something, regardless of the price.

    That is what we have government for, and i think we enerally concede that government is not a free market operation.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If the price is high enough, we can create diamonds and oil from scratch. Assuming we have energy.

    I worked in a commercial printing company, and one day this hippie looking character came in and said, “Hey dudes, can you guys print me some $10 bills?”

    My boss explained to him that this was a profit making enterprise. We would be happy to print him some $10 bills, but we would have to charge him $20 apiece.

    That’s a free market.

Leave a Reply