Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Sun, Sandals and Tequila

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

I’ll be taking a break from blogging during spring vacation. The Bacon family embarks tomorrow upon a cruise through the western Caribbean. The locale is almost incidental: Once you’ve seen one palm tree you’ve seen them all. (That’s just a joke, for the humorless among you. In point of fact, palm trees are endlessly fascinating if studied in their ecological context.)

I’m looking forward to a week dedicated to getting in shape — yoga, pilates, treadmills and elipticals — reading, and perhaps gathering a little insight for the blog. I hope to return with a jolly good read for all those interested in human settlement patterns.

While I’m gone, I have no doubt that Ed, Phil, JAB and Norm (and, who knows, maybe Claire will make a reappearance) will keep the pot boiling. I just hope the Bacon’s Rebellion server doesn’t melt down in my absence!

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

36 responses to “Sun, Sandals and Tequila”

  1. dave Avatar
    dave

    Speaking of sandals has anyone tried Pirate Brand Sandals?

    http://www.casualpirate.com

  2. the zoom Avatar
    the zoom

    I listened to a speech from a former congressman where he preached how bad the Republicans are in communicating there message to their base and to the public, and how the public does not know anything about what the republicans got done in the 109th congress. And while he was going on about the issues that the Republicans got done, he was also talking about the “earmarks”. He explained to the conservative crowd, that “earmarks are les than one tenth of a percent of the federal budget” witch is a stunning fact that makes me wonder why this is the concern of our time in the conservative community.

    As he finished his speech, I walked up to him and told him “Mr. Congressman, I might be wrong but I recall reading an article in the Wall St. Journal, about an official in CO criticizing an earmark that Sen. Allard (R-CO) inserted in a spending bill, saying that it takes away the money the State gets from the federal government.” So I asked the Hon. Congressman “Is it true that when a congressman or senator inserts an earmark in a spending bill, he does not raise spending? That he just takes away the liberty from one bureaucrat to decide how to spend the money and decides himself where the money should go?”

    The answer was yes.

    So if earmarks do not raise spending and it’s not more then one tenth of one percent of the budget, why is there so much noise about it?

    Because we do not communicate, and nobody amongst us is aware of the facts. We have to start communicating, and shouldn’t be afraid that someone will slam us, because if you fight back, you have a chance of winning, and if you don’t fight you don’t even have a chance of winning.

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Doesn’t Bacon seem to take a LOT of vacations? Spak up, Bloggers!

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    to give an idea of disparate interests can be…

    I am about to depart in a few weeks on an annual week long “cruise” tradition.

    This “cruise” will be in a canoe in a swamp… paddling across the Okeefenokee National Wildlife Refuge.. repleat with gators, snakes and all kinds of critters… prospectively eying various human body parts for mealtime.

    “Camping” consists of carrying ALL of one’s gear in a canoe.. from fresh water to food to shelter.. items as mundane as toothpaste to that all important rain parka…

    If you forget something.. you pay..dearly. Toothpaste is a “nit” compared to forgetting that rain parka.

    If you take too much.. you’ll flip your boat and loose all that gear..

    so the “trick” is to know exactly how much you “must” have…but still have a boat that will float.

    and by definition – if it “fits” in the canoe.. it “fits” in your car. 🙂

    These trips help me keep maintain a crystal clear perspective on the differences between “wants” and “needs”.

    🙂

  5. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    I knew there was a reason you see things more clearly than most.

    You know how to get your priorities straight!

    Have a great adventure!

    EMR

  6. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Larry, I hope you get to read “The Voyage of the Liberdade” by Joshua Slocumb. It is an epic of small boat voyaging and “making do.”

    Jim, By Western Carribbean I hope you get to include St. Vincent and the Grenadines. St. Vincent is a place that ought to be rich, given its natural assets, but isn’t.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Actually, I just got back from a “warm up” on the Roanoke River.

    Ray.. I’ll try… but I am very familiar with the fresh water situation on sailboats.. and one of my favorite teenager books was Kon-tiki.

    I’m still a month away from my “cruise”. 🙂

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mr. Hyde:

    One reason your comments are sometimes not useful is what Dr. Risse calls Geogrphic Illiteracy.

    You are right about the status of St. Vincent and The Grenadines but they are not in the Western Caribbean. St. V and G are at the southern end of the Windwards in the extream eastern Caribbena.

    The Western Caribbean includes the Caribbean shore of the Yucatan, Cuba, the Caymans and Jamaca. Hispanola and Puerto Rico are often shown on maps of both Eastern and Western but nothing east of the Anagada Passage has ever been thought of as “west.”

    Alpha Zoro and Zora

  9. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    You are correct, of course. What was I thinking? Having sailed the area you would think I would know east from west.

    It’s not really necessary to attempt to insult me while offering a correction: I admit to brain freeze on this.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mr. Hyde said:

    “It’s not really necessary to attempt to insult me while offering a correction: I admit to brain freeze on this.”

    We agree and only hope you keep that in mind, especially when you launch attacks in territory where you have never sailed like functional human settlement patterns.

    Alpha Zoro and Zora

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    You are right again.

    I’ve lived in industrial towns and resorts, in the center city, near suburbs, far suburbs, and countryside and I’ve never sailed a functional human settlement pattern.

    If you read my comments as attacks, then maybe you are being hyperdefensive. Take a deep breath and consider them an opportunity to improve the counter arguments. When you have one that is ironclad, as above, I’ll try to admit as much graciously.

    —————————

    In England, the government put up a website tat was callled something like E-petition. It was touted as a way for the people to bring grievances directly to the government and a grand experiment in improved democracy.

    After they got something like a million and a half complaints about the London congestion charging scheme, the government began to dismiss the site as trivial.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: congestion pricing complaints

    yup…. and websites where folks accuse the gasoline companies of conspiracies…

    ditto with the cost of electricity, cable TV, cell phones,
    plumbers, etc, etc

    The website I’d like to see is where Dominion takes a poll of it’s ratepayers and asks them what they’d like to pay instead the current price and then the adjust the price to be what the majority voted for.

    🙂

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I think the point wasn’t about congestion pricing: it was about what happens when people hear what they don’t wish to hear.

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    right… about ANY subject where it will cost them for a service that they’d rather get for “free” and especially for services that used to “free” or were perceived to be “free”.

    The discussion about congestion pricing is about whether or not it is feasible… functional, effective at reducing congestion and providing increased capacity – not whether it would win a popularity poll.

    Now.. if enough people are opposed to it as there are folks opposed to raising the gas tax.. then we’ll have more issues.

    but the reality is…. if you asked folks about congestion pricing tolls – a majority will not be happy with the idea

    .. BUT .. if you ask them WHICH of the options to raise more money are MORE acceptable – they will pick TOLLS over TAXES – by 2 – 1.

    Some of this depends on who wants to portray the issue .. and how.

    In my mind, it ought to be looked at in an overall context – because demonstrating that people don’t like the idea of tolls is really no different than demonstrating that people don’t like high gasoline prices or high gasoline taxes.

  15. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    It’s not about congestion pricing.

    The point is that the government put up this site that was supposed to be a good thing, where people could “petition” for change.

    When the government got a message they didn’t like (happened to be congestion tolls, but could have been anything) then government killed the messenger.

    We don’t want to hear what we don’t like to hear; whether it is the truth, whether it is verifiable, whether it is testable whether conditions have changed. Once we have sufficiently hardened our position, we become like Hitler in his bunker.

    I think it was Curly from the Three Stooges who used to say “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.”

    I really could care less whether or not we decide to establish congestion tolls. (Is the ICC going to be a congestion toll or a construction toll?) All I’m sugggestng is that we set criteria for whether this little experiment is a success or not.

    If we collect a million dollars in tolls, but the loss of commerce costs us a million dollars in sales taxes, or other unexpected consequences, then what is the threshhold where we pull the plug? Maybe before we roll those dice we watch California for a while and see what really develops.

    It is hard enough to convince individuals when they have made a mistake, with the government it is near impossible. The sheer inertia in government measn that, it is likely to invent a third mistake by making the second mistake of continuing the first mistake.

    In Oregon it took two rounds of referendum and two trips to the supreme court before they finally admitted they had created laws the people would not allow them to keep.

    I believe it is your opinion that people will pick tolls over taxes 2 to 1. I’m not sure I agree, but that is something that can be tested. Suppose you are right. Let people pay the tolls for a while and then ask which is more acceptable. If tolls suffer the Oregon experience, then what is the fall back position?

    I have no doubt tolls will reduce congestion, at least on the lanes where they are charged. That might be different from reducing congestion generally. If you have two lanes that move faster and three that move slower, is that a success or a failure, so far as congestion is concerned?

    We know that roads have max througput at 35 MPH and three car lenghts apart. A road operating under those conditions will have more throughput than the same road gridlocked. What it will not have is more capacity: that remains the same, unless you use the tolls to improve the roads. EPA is unlikely to allow that, and neither will the neighborhoods.

    You are right: some of this depends on who protrays the issue. That is why we should encourage both sides to portay it as they see fit and we should invite both sides to propose an experiment to test the other side’s arguments.

    Instead of rising to the challenge, we just call our opponents boneheads, know-nothings, ignorant, and agenda driven.

    As JAB points out, we pretty much know the effects of raisng taxes. It affects peoples budgets and they adjust. We know less about the effects of tolls. A toll might affect your budget as much as an equal tax and also cause a loss of other unplanned revenue and life adjustments.

    People will adjust. It isn’t a question of no one paying the toll, it is a question of the toll raising less revenue than planned. If you are going to look at it in an overall context, then the right question isn’t which method of raising the same amount of money is more acceptable. The first thing you have to decide is whether it really is the same amount of money: in an overall context. Then, if it is the same money after all the redistributions, the question is whether you are better off: in an overall context.

    I don’t think we know. I’m willing to let MD and California run that experiment for us, but only so long as we agree not to kill the guy that brings back answers we may not like.

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “I believe it is your opinion that people will pick tolls over taxes 2 to 1. I’m not sure I agree,..”

    not me…. drivers and AAA
    http://www.aaamidatlantic.com/safety/md_trans_network.asp

    you oughta take the time to go look.. I usually try to provide links that support what I claim.

    “If tolls suffer the Oregon experience, then what is the fall back position?”

    I don’t think you can compare TOLLs to Oregon… most folks would not agree that those two are the same.

    “I have no doubt tolls will reduce congestion, at least on the lanes where they are charged.”

    this is true. It’s even more true when you build 700 million dollars worth of Springfield Interchanges and all it does is shunt the traffic to the next blockage.

    Congestion Pricing though can be extended to cover as much of the network as is needed to deal with regional congestion and it can be done in a very short amount of time without huge amounts of money and decades-long delays and all the other problems associated with new roads.

    “That might be different from reducing congestion generally. If you have two lanes that move faster and three that move slower, is that a success or a failure, so far as congestion is concerned?”

    It’s a SUCCESS when you as an individual can choose which that you prefer. Much better than you having no choice at all.

    “We know that roads have max througput at 35 MPH and three car lenghts apart.”

    FYI – HOT lanes are required to operate at 45mph

    ” unless you use the tolls to improve the roads. EPA is unlikely to allow that, and neither will the neighborhoods.”

    EPA WILL allow you to do that if you can do it without exceeding pollution caps WHICH might be the case once Congestion Pricing is in place.

    But even then.. money for fixing bottlenecks.. reducing congestion-producing problems like replacing “dumb” signals with “smart” signals.

    Ray – the beauty of Congestion Pricing is that it is adaptable and configurable to real-time conditions… and more than that – if it turns out to be a bust – you just turn off the system and go back to where we are right now.

    It looks like to me that HOT lanes ARE going to happen regardless of whether you oppose them or I support them.. if I read correctly?

    Is that what you have read recently?

  17. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    It’s a SUCCESS when you as an individual can choose which that you prefer. Much better than you having no choice at all.

    Maybe.

    That’s only part of the answer. The reason we want to get rid of or alleviate congestion is to reduce the waste of time and resources, and the pollution that goes with it.

    Suppose that with two lanes going faster and three lanes going slower, that the evidence shows you are wasting more time and more fuel than previously. Is it still a success, considered overall, just because you have a coice?

    Remember as you said, it is the overall context.

    What you are saying is that it is all right to waste more time and pollute more as long as there is money on the table that pays the government that caused this mess to begin with. Basically, that it is all right to pollute more as long as you have the money to make that choice.

    To me, that is an environmental anathema. Rather than allowing some people to pay in such a way that the overall situation is worse, but theirs is better, I would rather spend an equal amount of money to actually make things better, overall, of course.

    As soon as you allow the powerful and wealthy to buy their way out of a problem, you decrease the initiative to really fix it. And since they are the powerful and wealthy, you take away the very initiative that is most likely too invoke real change.

  18. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    If hot lanes are required to operate at 45 then they will not optimze throughput, however such a speed might optimize revenue. People will be less inclined to pay to travel 35 than they will to travel 45.

    Anyway, speed is only part of the problem, you also need to control distance between cars, because that is what controls uncertainty, and that hasn’t happened yet. (The technology is partly available, but if we employ that technology we can control congestion without tolls.)

    If you toll that thing at 45, the rational driver is going to want four car lengths. But four car lengths is enough to encourage the self important nutcases who just HAVE to be there to engage in a little 60 MPH broken field running.

    The result of that is localized crowding and uncertainty and then lower speeds.

    Just today I was running wth traffic at 75 and following at my usual safe distance plus 30%. I watched two cars threading the needle, using all four lanes, and traveling at a speed that made 75 seem like standing still. Maybe we can program the transponders to automatically write them a ticket.

    Of course, they didn’t really gain anything and 15 miles later, there they were, two cars ahead, and two gallons behind.

  19. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    “We know that roads have max througput at 35 MPH and three car lenghts apart. A road operating under those conditions will have more throughput than the same road gridlocked. What it will not have is more capacity: that remains the same, unless you use the tolls to improve the roads. EPA is unlikely to allow that, and neither will the neighborhoods.”

    I t isn’t what we know, it’s what we know that isn’t so, that creates problems.

  20. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    In Oregon they got rules that were promoted and sold by a small and vocal minority with a promise of payments in recompense for value lost.

    They then reneged on the recompense. It took thirty years for people too understand the collateral damage and to understand that what they were sold wasn’t waht they got.

    They didn’t even have to uninstall any hardware and it still took ten years to undo.

    I think the situation is exactly comparable.

  21. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Even if you get past the EPA and have enogh money (both of which I doubt) you still have to get past the neighbors. Any new road in Urban Virginia is going to make the thirty year ICC ordeal look tame.

    Anyway, it is the wrong answer. Go after the root cause of congestion, not the symptoms.

  22. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    No matter how many times I have tried to explain that the HOV lanes, sparsely populated as they are, actually carry more passengers that the regular lanes.

    People just don’t believe it, and they are convinced traffic would move faster wthout the HOV lanes. It isn’t true, but it is the popular perception.

    One thing I had not considered is that tolls may encourage more car pools. Not paying the toll gives the perception that they are getting something for free. If your theory is right, they will likely over use it.

    Since they don’t pay tolls, revenue goses down, but if there are enough of them to cause congestion the price goes up. Then they get even more of a free ride and the single payers are more discouraged and revenue goes down again.

    Even if it works as advertized, the best you can hope for is that it will make the congested region that much less competitive.

    In Utah hot lane toll is initially set at $50 per month and may be raised to $100 per month depending on evidence of demand.

    Doesn’t sound like minut to minute tolling.

    Money gose to a special restircted fund and may be used only for right of way and construction of transportation facilities WITHIN THE SAME CORRIDOR.

    In Florida the goals were stated as follows:

    -To optimize use of managed-lane capacity on I-95 in Miami-Dade County;

    -To offer meaningful congestion relief to those willing to pay for it;

    -To reduce congestion in the general-purpose lanes;

    -To protect Level of Service C conditions in the HOT lanes, so that HOV users can be ensured of quality service;

    -To pay for up to 100 percent of the needed facility modifications out of toll revenues; and,

    -To provide a means for high-quality express-bus transit in the I-95 corridor.

    So they got the first goal right, to optimize usage.

    The second goal is at least honest: reduce congestion for those willing to pay.

    The third goal sounds like an afterthought, and it is the only reference to this goal in the proposal.

    The fourth one, about Level C service is devoted only to those that pay for service. It says nothing about those who opt to car-pool for service.

    The fifth one is a laugh. To pay for up to 100% of costs throeugh toll collection could mean 0%, right?

    And number six? Now we find out where the money goes – to the bus riders.

    http://www.its.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13668_files/chapter_7.htm

    This link gives what I would call a pretty diplomatic view of the operating HOT lanes. Note that in California even the HOV3 vehicles pay a toll, although they get a discount.

    Also notice they sold far more transponders thatn are actually used, and they are used for a single road, not for regional control.

    Finally, there have been problems with private ownership.

    The site has little too say about opinions after the fact other than this:”…sponsors concluded that while general support for the HOT concept was only marginal, people felt impatient with underutilized HOV lanes and often supported the Value Express Lanes concept as a means of maximizing use of HOV lanes.”

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “In Utah hot lane toll is initially set at $50 per month and may be raised to $100 per month depending on evidence of demand.

    Doesn’t sound like minut to minute tolling.”

    Ray — you seem to fixate on black/white, yes/no, on/off, all or nothing views of things.

    Minute to minute does not mean you MUST do minute to minute.

    It means you can do that .. AND you could offer monthly, weekly bulk rates… or you could get “frequent flyer” points…etc, etc, etc.

    You could even have a certain number of miles/minutes that are much cheaper until you go over your limit – like cell phones.

    Your goals, the use of the revenues, operational choices… all are not locked in stone .. black or white.. on or off but adjustable per what is desired.

    And folks and companies are not going to move out.

    Can you imagine the CEO and the top level managers .. who can easily “buy” a faster trip home or to the airport or to an important meeting across town… leaving to go to a city without congestion pricing and endless unrelenting congestion?

    You keep thinking of specific reasons why it won’t work and each one you assume that it can only work that one way… and it’s exactly the opposite.

    Not endlessly configurable but very much comprehensively so.

    Think of all the ways it can be configured, changed, modified, adapted .. as it evolves.. to tailor it to conditions and circumstances and desired results.

    And like I’ve said before.. if at the end of the day – NOTHING works (an outcome that is not likely) – you are no worse off than you are now – just turn off the computers and close the door behind you.

    This is a no brainer.

    No billions of dollars and decades of waiting… only to find out that while you were waiting for construction.. more and more traffic came along and rendered moot your planned improvements.

    And Ray.. yes you can build new roads if the EPA allows them. Quite a few new ones have been built by referenda if I recall..

    but what I’d really expect is existing network improvements .. bottlenecks.. better ramp configurations, etc.

    You won’t really need near as many new roads and not nearly as often… you’ll be able to plan them out.. give better and more fair dollars for properties, etc. also AND better integrate METRO and Bus Rapid Transit.

  24. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    The fourth one, about Level C service is devoted only to those that pay for service. It says nothing about those who opt to car-pool for service.

    It’s not what you know, it’s what you know that is’nt so thats the problem.

    Level of service applies to the road, it is not divided by pay for service and car pools.

    “LOS C has more congestion than B, where ability to pass or change lanes is not always assured. LOS C is the target for urban highways in many places. At LOS C most experienced drivers are comfortable, roads remain safely below but efficiently close to capacity, and posted speed is maintained.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service

  25. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Yes, JW, I understand. The point was only that the comment was directed to those that pay for service in cash, without even a hat tip to those that pay for the service by forming car pools.

    I consider it to be not only bad PR, but an insight as to the real dynamics.

  26. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Larry, how many times do I have to say this in order to get you to stop arguing with yourself.

    I agree with all you say about congestion tolling. Except that I think on a region wide basis it may be more challenging than you think.

    I agree congestion tolling is necessary. I agreee it is coming.

    I don’t agree it will have the overall efects you think it will. In the end we will still have to pay for new roads to service new homes and put them in new places.

    I don’t see any point in arguing this with people who won’t engage the argument.

    This is going to happen, apparently. In 20 or 30 years our children can pull up the archives and argue about which of us was right.

  27. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    All I am suggesting with the Utah example is that the business as usual interests may have ways to undermine the concept.

    I write this stuff obliquely so you will have a chance to think.

  28. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I’m not the black and white guy here. I think all cats are gray in the dark, as the French say.

    I just think we are mostly in the dark.

  29. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I’m not the black and white guy here. I think all cats are gray in the dark, as the French say.

    I just think we are mostly in the dark.

  30. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “It means you can do that .. AND you could offer monthly, weekly bulk rates… or you could get “frequent flyer” points…etc, etc, etc.”

    Yes, I’m an engineer at heart. At heart I belive we can do anything we want.

    I’m also a project engineer. I believe we will get nothing done successfully unless we articulate the goals carefully and make a plan to meet them.

    I’m also an financial analyst. I believe we won’t meet those goals unless they are financially profitable.

    And I understand organizational behavior. Even if a goal is profitable and for the beterr goood, some organizations will opppose it, and probably for good reason.

    Yep, you are right. With an infinite bureaucracy we could do all the things you suggest. For each of them there will be two consituencies. One opposed and one for. The bureaucracy will be in quagmire for ever trying to decide who is “right”. (Who has the most bucks and the most votes.)

    Most of all I’m a scientist. Let’s pick a city and make an example of it. Install region wide congestion charging, just as you describe.

    Put monitors on everyting we can think of that is related to transportation, home life and commerce, and then the sit back and measure what happens.

    My sugestion is that we have the Feds indemnify this experiment to cover all the losses. I don’t think the results will be pretty.

  31. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “….only to find out that while you were waiting for construction.. more and more traffic came along and rendered moot your planned improvements.”

    More traffic is going to come along and render moot your congestion tolling as well. Either that or we are deep in the economic/environmental toilet, in wich case your congestion tolling will be moot.

  32. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I’m no expert in anything, and don’t claim to be. I know a little about a lot of things, and I know what I see.

    New roads will be built if we need them. Someone will pay for them. Even if EPA alows it, they probably won’t be built where we are already “built out”. EMR and others can disagree over what “built out” means.

    Take a walk to Tyson’s and think about it.

  33. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I’m no expert in anything, and don’t claim to be. I know a little about a lot of things, and I know what I see.

    New roads will be built if we need them. Someone will pay for them. Even if EPA alows it, they probably won’t be built where we are already “built out”. EMR and others can disagree over what “built out” means.

    Take a walk to Tyson’s and think about it.

  34. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “More traffic is going to come along and render moot your congestion tolling”

    no Ray. the TOLL VARIES to manage the congestion.

    If there is more traffic the TOLL goes up.

    If there is less traffic the TOLL goes down.

    Check out the WaPo this morning for an article on the Dulles Toll Road and their intent to raise the toll.

    LOTS of issues there including public policy issues involving the proper use of the TOLL revenues but the article demonstrates some of the tradeoffs between higher tolls and how it affects traffic demand.

  35. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “the TOLL VARIES to manage the congestion.

    If there is more traffic the TOLL goes up.

    If there is less traffic the TOLL goes down.”

    That only works for the toll lanes. What about the rest of them? Say you set the toll for free flowing traffic and that number amounts to ten percent of all the traffic. Over time the traffic doubles, and now to keep the toll lanes free flowing you have to raise the toll and serve only 5% of the new total traffic.

    Where do you suppose that leads? That traffic is going someplace else. The tolls on that toll road become more and more insignificant as a fraction of the total, even as the tolls go higher.

    Or, maybe it just disappears, like traffic on the East Side Highway. But that means you are putting a bigger and bigger chokehold on businesses and homes served by that road.

    Look, our airports already work under a metered access policy, but they are still overcrowded in the sense of being backed up. Just because you reduced the usage through higher tolls does not mean that you have reduced the demand. If that demand cannot be serviced in one place, then it will go someplace else and more capacity will still be required.

    As a result FAA is planning to upgrade a number of secondary airports and pour a lot more concrete. Even in the face of risng fuel costs, they are planning on a 300% increase, and they are building to suit: new runways, longer runways, and even new airports.

    In short, they are building new places.

    How are they going to pay for it? User fees are on the table, but Aviation says they pay too much now. General aviation says we haven’t got the money. It is NOVA and ROVA fight all over again.

    However the user fees argument shake out, it won’t be enough. So, if you think paying through the general fund for roads you don’t happen to use is bad, just wait till you get that airport bill.

    At the end of the day, or decade, paying higher tolls if you can afford it, and standing longer in line if you can’t afford it, will not be an acceptable answer. It is not an acceptable alternative for more capacity.

  36. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “If that demand cannot be serviced in one place, then it will go someplace else and more capacity will still be required.”

    If the demand was inflexible SOLO private auto – especially at rush hour – this would be true.

    But it’s not.

    Demand varies according to a bunch of factors – not the least of which is personal discretion about when, where, how to get from point a to point b.

    There is also assumptions that other roads could not be tolled and/or new capacity, bottleneck fixes, etc would not be possible and this is not true either.

    Congestion pricing does two very important things:

    1. – it puts a price on reliability and it will be your choice whether to pay extra for it or not. You can even get increased reliability for no extra cost if you ride in a multi-person vehicle.

    2. – The revenues that result from congestion pricing could be used to upgrade the entire network so that everyone benefits – not just those that pay extra.

Leave a Reply

Read More