Marc Fisher, a metro columnist for the Washington Post, has launched a full-scale assault on the HOT lanes proposed for the Washington metro area, mainly on the grounds that they benefit only the rich and powerful. He uses three key arguments against the congestion tolls:
1) Lexus lanes seem unfair to low- and middle-income commuters who can’t afford to shell out the big bucks. In Virginia, where prices could vary according to traffic volume, planners say it could cost up to $42 per day roundtrip between Prince William County and the Pentagon on the HOT lanes scheduled to be built along Interstate 95.
2) Folks tend not to believe the new lanes would really save much time. After all, look how congested HOV lanes have become on I-95.
3) The structure of these deals, with private companies winning the right to profit off traditionally public infrastructure, sets off many people’s stench meters. Because public dollars built almost all roads in the first place, exorbitant tolls feel like double taxation.
None of Fisher’s arguments hold water. Point for point, here’s why
1) Hot lanes unfair. HOT lanes along I-95 might cost $42 for commuting both ways, but few low/middle-income people would use it for that purpose. They would use the lanes only when time was at a premium. The lanes would give them an option they did not possess before. Insofar as new HOT lanes took traffic off existing lanes, low/middle-income motorists actually would benefit.
If low/middle commuters do choose use the HOT lanes to cut the time of their drive to/from work, they can avail themselves of numerous options: car pooling, van pooling, buses and other forms of ride sharing in which riders share the cost of paying the toll. Ride sharing with one other passenger would cut the cost per person in half; sharing with two would cut the cost by two thirds.
2) Hot lanes don’t work. If the lanes don’t save much time, then people won’t use them and they won’t have to pay the charge. D’oh! Ideally, tolls would be set at rates consistent with a level of traffic that optimizes traffic flow through the HOT lanes. If the lanes are congested and the traffic flow is sub-optimal, then the rates need to be raised until conditions improve. It’s called dynamic pricing.
3) Stench meter. There is no intrinsic reason that HOT lanes must be privatized. VDOT could introduce congestion pricing just as easily as a private company could. The advantage of public-private partnerships is that the private sector would invest a billion or more dollars of private capital into upgrading the Interstates, doing what the state cannot afford to do.
Fisher might argue that the state could afford to upgrade the Interstates itself if it just had more money. Why not raise taxes? Well, we could. Just two problems. First, you’d have to raise taxes a lot more than a billion dollars in order to generate a billion dollars for I-95 or I-495; state road revenues go through a complex distribution formula that makes it all but impossible to steer the money where it’s needed most. Second, just adding more lane-miles of Interstate doesn’t incentivize the kind of car pooling and van/bus riding that is essential to maximize the carrying capacity of the roads.
Finally, as far as the “fairness” factor is concerned, I find the issue wearisome. The reason people spend years earning college degrees, working hard and saving their money is so they can have more money than if they don’t. The advantage of having more money is that you can afford things you could not otherwise afford. You can ride in a Lexus instead of a Hyundai. You call up a satellite-navigation map on your touch-tone screen instead of unfolding a paper road map. You can put a double latte from Starbucks in your cup holder instead of a cup of joe from Quick-Stop. And you can pay tolls to whizz along in HOT lanes instead trduging bumper-to-bumper in the congested lanes. That’s the whole point of making more money! Otherwise we’d all jump out of the rat race!
(Hat tip to Tobias Jodter for passing along the story.)