Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Roads, Cell Phones and Congestion Pricing

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Bart Hinkle at the Richmond Times-Dispatch strikes again, demonstrating once more that he’s one of the few editorial writers in Virginia with an interest in broadening the transportation debate beyond the taxes-or-no taxes dead end. Today he starts with the question: “From 1985 to 2004, the number of cell phone subscribers in America rose 5,300 percent. So why don’t the networks suffer from paralyzing gridlock?”

The answer: Because they use congestion pricing. “You … pay service charges depending on how long you talk and where you go while you’re talking. … Those service charges enable the phone companies to build more towers and extend their service even further. The system pays for its own growth.” If cell phone companies use congestion pricing, why not VDOT?

Hinkle kindly quotes some of my writing on Bacon’s Rebellion, and even cites one of our readers — Larry Gross, I believe it was — who used the cell phone analogy in one of his comments. It can get lonely out here in the blogosphere. It’s nice to have a friend in the MSM.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

7 responses to “Roads, Cell Phones and Congestion Pricing”

  1. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Excellent article. Keep in mind, also, that the wireless carriers also make investment decisions based on factors, such as quality of service, anticipated demand, return on investment. These companies, which in many instances also paid the federal government hundreds of millions and, even, billions for use of the radio spectrum, are strongly motivated to make economically sound business decisions.

    They must address the demands of customers, along with the needs of their investors and employees, in a competitive market. They could not afford to make irrational decisions to commit large sums of money on network equipment and systems that did not produce any results.

    The wireless industry is yet another good example as to why Virginia needs to reform VDOT, the CTB and its land use laws instead of just trying to raise taxes.

  2. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I expect JW will weigh in here to say taht it is only congestion pricing if the proceeds are used for alternate modes.

    I’m surprised he doesn’t get jumped all over for the idea that congestion pricing might expand the network. YIKES.

    I don’t care what you call it, congestion pricing is still a tax increase, a targeted one, and a necessary one, but I don’t think it should be the only one, there is just too much work to do to have only some of us pay for it all.

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    The point about cell phones – true.

    If your phone is “on”, the cell phone company knows where you are.. and which way you are travelling…

    If you think about this – they have to.
    How would they route a call to your phone without knowing where your phone is and what tower its close to?

    I’m not revealing any secrets.. bad guys know this full well.. at least the smarter ones do…

    There’s another aspect to cell phones in that they can work also as “trackers” for toll systems (and law enforcement)… because almost all new phones also have a GPS capability that is also captured by the cell tower.

    In fact.. some companies are actually using this technology right now to gather real time traffic data by computing the travel time of vehicles on a stretch of road.

    The cell phone companies sell this data to companies that sell traffic status info.

    VDOT and other DOTs are also looking into this same technology to use that info on overhead status signs and 511.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Congestion pricing is a “no-brainer” because it works for almost any situation where it is too expensive to provide capacity for max load.

    Californina and other states now have pilot programs for electricity using “smart meters” that allow congestion pricing for electricity.

    Simply waiting to do a load of dishes or clothes beyond peak hour save big bucks for both consumers and power plants.

    Ray will term this as penalizing people but what penalizes people more than taking more of their taxes to provide peak hour capacity when pricing congestion achieves better traffic flow for everyone and does not require tax increases.

    Imagine how much cell phones would cost -if everyone had unlimited minutes any time or day for one low price…

    That’s what is happening to highways right now.

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Not at all, I’m in favor of congestion pricing.

    I just don’t think it will cure all our ills.

    I don’t think either the costs or the benefits will accrue to those wh take the money out of their pocket. They will demand more from their employers to cover the costs, and the employers will send the bill to us.

    Either that, or else they will move. It will be the reverse of induced traffic. Probably the money will be diverted towards other alternatives, and there is a powerful incentive to increase the toll more than necessary or manipulate it for max revenue rather than max traffic throughput.

    But, if I’m right, and you follow the cell phone analogy, then you could use the money from where it is overcrowded to pay for new faclities where it will become overcrowded next: before it becomes too expensive.

    Congestion pricing could actually help fund sprawl. That still might be better than what we have now.

    Congestion pricing isn’t going to create any new money, and we will need a whole new bureaucracy to manage the system. So in the end, we wind up with less to work with than we have now, if we could just agree on how much that is and what to do with it.

    Congestion pricing won’t resolve those issues either.

    That said, I’m still in favor of congestion pricing. It is a market based solution, and it is better than anything else we have got going.

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Congestion pricing could actually help fund sprawl. That still might be better than what we have now.”

    Not if you charge the true costs.

    For instance, it has been estimated that a 50 mile toll on I-95 would cost $15.

    Some will pay that and some will not but the point is enough will pay it if there is sufficient demand and that money WILL be used to upgrade.

    It won’t do any good for employees to demand toll money from employers because it will still be counted as income – as it should.

    So 50 mile commuters will pay $30 a day, $150 a week, $600 a month and $7000 a year – which if that is what they want to do – will PAY for the infrastructure to enable them to do so on a relatively uncongested road that pretty much guarantees them a reliable commute.

    Will this increase SPRAWL?

    I don’t think so. I think what it will do is

    1. provide adequate funding for roadways

    2. let the marketplace decide where roadways should be or not be – based on transportation demand and not land-speculation

    3. let people make personal choices about where they want to spend their money

    4. Relieve rush hour congestion for everyone.

    5. just the users of that infrastructure what it truly costs to provide the infrastructure that they want and need.

    6. NOT charge that guy in Farmville higher gas taxes to spend on new rush hour capacity for NoVa commuters.

  7. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    The $16 congestion charge in london has saved Londoners 15 seconds on a five kilometer trip. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

    Yep, if the commuters demand money from their employers they will have to pay tax on it. So what? It still means they won;t feel the bite of their decsions, and it still means their employers will passs the bite back to the rest of us.

    1. It won’t provide adequate funding for new roadways, and anyway, where would you put a new roadway in Fairfax? Will EPA even let you? Besides, the money will be co-opted for alternate transportation. JW says it isn’t a congestion charge if the money is pent on new roads.

    Even if it provided enough money, you could find the space, and EPA would let you there would be huge opposition to any new road and it couldn’t possibley be built for thirty years.

    No dice on number one.

    2. What, exactly, is going to cause the transportation demand, if it isn’t land “speculation”? Hasn’t the market place already decided where the roads should go by snapping up thousand of homes in the outer suburbs?

    3. Don’t people have the choice of where to spend their money now? How will this help, other than to encourage them to spend their money somewhere there is no congestion charge?

    4. No, it will relieve rush hour congestion for those that can afford to pay the charge. Everyone else will still be stuck in the congested lanes or else they will be stuck at home.

    5. At last we agree, sort of. What about everyone else who uses the new hot lanes during non rush periods? Or the other lanes for that matter. Do they not have to pay anything for the infrastructure they need?

    6. Now you are just being silly. if the farmville pays more gas taxes and fairfax pays higher gas taxes, which way do you think the money will really flow? What if the money passes each other on the highway? There are projects all over the state, what is the point of arguing which penny went where? Farmville isn’t going to get a commuter charge or hot lane, probably, who pays for their infrastructure, and how?

    If you increase the cost of doing business in the city, some of it will definitely, absolutely, go someplace else. Whether that produces more sprawl depends on how good a job we do of building all those other places. looking around, I’m not too encouraged.

    The roads to the core are all jammed now. Even if you get more throughput by reducing the jam, you cannot get them all into town on a relatively uncongested road with a reliable commute. That is just fantasy thinking. The only way that can happen is if an awful lot of people don’t go downtown. But you can be sure they will go somewhere, and I think it will increase sprawl.

Leave a Reply

Read More