Congestion pricing wouldn't sell here
Thomas Friedman's column today deals with congestion pricing, "probably the biggest green initiative coming down the road these days ..."
What is it? Here's a detailed description from Transportation Alternatives, which strongly promotes the concept.
Oops. Looks like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan was dead-ended by the State Assembly.
The proposal certainly carries plenty of logic: If you want less of something -- in this case downtown traffic -- tax it.
It works for cigarette consumption in North Carolina, and if that doesn't demonstrate the power of taxation, nothing will.
I suppose you could apply the concept of congestion pricing to stretches of our interstate highway system here.
But there would be quite a few obstacles to overcome.
You'd need a system to enforce the new rules of the road -- collecting the tax, making sure no one evades paying it and so on.
You'd also have to put in place good alternatives for people who, rather than pay the tax, will look for other ways to get where they're going or simply not go.
London, a congestion pricing pioneer, offers plenty of public transportation options.
The Triad? Not so much. It would require a huge public investment to get there.
Alternatively, more businesses could let employees work from home. Telecommuting actually could do more to relieve traffic congestion in the long run than a billion-dollar light-rail system.
But the biggest obstacle would be political. Taxpayers likely would resent being made to pay what amounts to a special privilege tax to drive on public highways that they're already paying for through other taxes. And elected officials who cross those taxpayers might not remain in office after the next election.
It probably takes really horrendous traffic conditions to create a groundswell of support for congestion pricing. If New York City hasn't gotten there yet, then we're a long. long way from it here in North Carolina. And that's a good thing.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Doug:
Following your suggestion from a previous column, let's start by framing the issue in a neutral way. We all agree that highways and transportation networks are needed and that they need to be paid for. They can either be entirely funded by a general tax on everyone, OR they can be at least partly funded in proportion to people's use of those resources.
Your discussion misses two obvious points: first, that funds collected from tolls could be used to offset taxes elsewhere, and second, that more rational use of roads would mean that fewer roads and lanes would need to be constructed and that fewer taxes would need to be collected in the first place. So instead of your tax-increase bogeyman (didn't you criticize scare tactics in another recent column?), you would actually end up with an overall tax decrease. Some people would probably pay more, but most people and society overall would pay less.
Alternatively, we could reframe the issue in a less neutral way. Rather than use a price-based approach, which tolls and congestion pricing most definitely are, you advocate continuing a Soviet-style distribution system where bureaucrats will continue to tax from all, regardless of their need or desire for a road, and dispense asphalt and concrete either according to some government plan or, worse, according to some political formula ("Bridge to Nowhere," anyone?). As an extra (but easily anticipated) bonus, you even get the Soviets' favorite hidden allocation schemes--massive queuing and shoddy quality--when the bureaucrats set prices artificially low.
What happened to the market principles that you defend in nearly every other instance? Or should we just call you Comrade Clark?
Posted on July 17, 2007 10:07 PM
ather than use a price-based approach, which tolls and congestion pricing most definitely are, you advocate continuing a Soviet-style distribution system where bureaucrats will continue to tax from all, regardless of their need or desire for a road, and dispense asphalt and concrete either according to some government plan or, worse, according to some political formula ("Bridge to Nowhere," anyone?). As an extra (but easily anticipated) bonus, you even get the Soviets' favorite hidden allocation schemes--massive queuing and shoddy quality--when the bureaucrats set prices artificially low.* David
David! You were doing fine until you use the former soviet system as a example of a modern Orwellian road system. Are you aware that only 15 % of the Russia Road system is pave or concrete. That's right! The rest are still mud paths and gravel pits from the Imperial Russia days. Maybe using the German System from Hilter days might be a better model of state fascism at work for Doug to understand would be better.
One other thing! I will have you know that Doug is no communist as a former cell member associate. He might be many political things and even a defunk Thespin actor from high school. But he is not a card carrying Wal-Mart greeter!
Posted on July 17, 2007 11:47 PM
Dave, just because you're Down Under doesn't mean you have to see everything upside down.
I'm guilty of scare tactics by pointing out that a lot of people will resist paying a new tax to drive where they want? In your world, are people happy about tax increases? Are they clamoring for new toll roads, which is what this amounts to? Please don't tell me you really believe that congestion pricing will lead to tax cuts. Again, that must be some alternative universe. It doesn't happen in this one.
Posted on July 18, 2007 8:31 AM
Doug:
Australians & Americans may each be willing to pay one new tax if their other taxes go down and if their total taxes go down and their access to roads improves. Your proposal is the one that increases the overall tax burden.
And yes, people in some parts of the country, such as metropolitan Washington, are clamoring for new toll roads to combat congestion. In the case of metro Washington, residents have already gotten one privately financed road and soon will have another because the state government has allowed the private market to work.
Posted on July 18, 2007 6:36 PM
Doug:
Let's try another analogy...
A government agency provides you, me, and even Connie with water and waste treatment services. It charges a fee depending on how much water you use.
Imagine what water usage would look like if funding for water authorities came from income or property taxes instead of from fees. How much water would be used? This is essentially how we have decided to fund our roads and highways, with the inevitable result that supply is out of line with demand.
Posted on July 19, 2007 2:29 AM
How about public schools? You pay according to how many kids you have enrolled. Or police and fire protection? Pay a fee for service. City parks? Pay only if you use them. Social services? Public health? We could have government a la carte.
Posted on July 19, 2007 8:26 AM
Doug:
For some things, the "a la carte" approach makes sense because it reduces costs and unnecessary usage.
Your school example is a close cousin to conservative proposals to provide tuition vouchers usable at public or private schools. "Who pays" is also a hot topic in day care education and higher education.
Fire companies and police in many communities have charges for things like ambulance rides and high numbers of responses to alarms.
Public health facilities often charge at least nominal fees for their services.
So why not road use?
Posted on July 19, 2007 8:13 PM