possibly noteworthy wrote:

A large and growing burden on the nation’s economy, traffic congestion arises for various reasons, and more than one mechanism is needed to combat it. It is most unlikely, however, that serious inroads to address the problem will be made without fundamental reform in the way consumers are charged for their use of congested highways. Congestion prices are tolls that reflect the economic costs of congestion, including productivity losses from traffic delays, increased accidents, higher emissions, and more. Such prices would help reduce these economic costs, and guide transportation investment resources to their highest and best use—which would include a better balance between highway and transit investment. In addition, such prices would generate revenues to help finance new investment and compensate low-income people and others for whom toll payments are especially burdensome. Requiring federal, state, and local engagement, such reform is a necessary step in the development of an effective, efficient, and sustainable highway system for the twenty-first century.

Jesus Christ, man. The term "noteworthy" has certain connotations in our society. Two of those connotations relate to brevity and importance. You see, if something is very important and a lot can be said on the subject, then something is "historic." If it is of minor importance and doesn't need more than a footnote on the pages of history, then it is "noteworthy." This thing you posted required too much goddam reading to ascertain a point. Shame on you for being so freaking verbose. Keep it simple, pretend you're in advertising when you post something here, dumbass.

k wrote:

Very interesting article, and probably a vision of the future in this country... I think congestion pricing is one of the only potentially viable ways to get people to recognize something closer to the true cost of driving their cars.

This strikes me as a non-optimal solution ...

I'd be curious to find out if these issues have been addressed anywhere ...

In January, I recommended a short piece by Verlyn Klinkenborg that touches on this:

Every now and then I meet someone in Manhattan who has never driven a car. Some confess it sheepishly, and some announce it proudly. For some it is just a practical matter of fact, the equivalent of not keeping a horse on West 87th Street or Avenue A. Still, I used to wonder at such people, but more and more I wonder at myself.

Driving is the cultural anomaly of our moment. Someone from the past, I think, would marvel at how much time we spend in cars and how our geographic consciousness is defined by how far we can get in a few hours’ drive and still feel as if we’re close to home. Someone from the future, I’m sure, will marvel at our blindness and at the hole we have driven ourselves into, for we are completely committed to an unsustainable technology.

possibly noteworthy wrote:
In January, I recommended a short piece by Verlyn Klinkenborg that touches on this:

Every now and then I meet someone in Manhattan who has never driven a car. Some confess it sheepishly, and some announce it proudly. For some it is just a practical matter of fact, the equivalent of not keeping a horse on West 87th Street or Avenue A. Still, I used to wonder at such people, but more and more I wonder at myself.

Driving is the cultural anomaly of our moment. Someone from the past, I think, would marvel at how much time we spend in cars and how our geographic consciousness is defined by how far we can get in a few hours’ drive and still feel as if we’re close to home. Someone from the future, I’m sure, will marvel at our blindness and at the hole we have driven ourselves into, for we are completely committed to an unsustainable technology.

I remember reading that (I read damn near everything I see on the topic of transit), though I'm not 100% sure how it applies. Frankly, I'm not particularly optimistic about the automotive era coming to an end soon. Americans are too tied to them in too many ways.

Like everything, it's complicated by a variety of issues, not least of which is politics, in which subsidy and concessions to lobbyists obscure the true cost of a *lot* of habits that are harmful to our culture or our health. Add in the view so many Americans have of taxation (i.e. a fundamental evil) in the first place, and you find it extremely hard to pay for *anything* that takes longer than an election cycle to build.

For transit and modern urban development, it's complicated by the fact that land is cheap : artificially cheap, in my opinion, as I think undeveloped land has intrinsic value for environmental (air quality, temperature, bio-diversity) and aesthetic reasons... reasons that are not, or are barely, factored into land costs.

I encourage Atlantans who haven't been to Athens in a few years to make that drive (irony!) sometime soon. I did so recently after maybe 4 or 5 years and it's astonishing how much that route has changed, and for the worse. I recall a relatively sleepy divided highway, with trees along both sides, an occasional country-looking road, and a gas station or diner here and there. Now, you can count dozens of *distinct* signs for new developments, offering housing from $100,000 to $200,000... huge tracts of land converted into cheaply built, unnecessarily large homes, with minimal tree cover (and scrubby, post-construction plantings too, many of the type that will never, and can never, grow beyond a certain height). There are new strip malls offering what the american suburbanite wants -- Applebees and Chilis, plenty of parking and no night-life. Nothing -- and I mean nothing : not the war in Iraq, not climate change, not nuclear-en... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

k wrote:
Here, where people are *already* moving further and further from downtown because it's so cheap, I see nothing that would prevent an even more severe exodus if driving into town got pricier.

I think you're right about that. I don't think charging peak-hour tolls is feasible, and Anthony Downs further explains why in a related article:

Anthony Downs wrote:
Transportation economists have long been proponents of this tactic, but most Americans reject this solution politically for two reasons. Tolls would favor wealthier or subsidized drivers and harm poor ones, so most Americans would resent them, partly because they believe they would be at a disadvantage.

The second drawback is that people think these tolls would be just another tax, forcing them to pay for something they have already paid for through gasoline taxes. For both these reasons, few politicians in our democracy—and so far, anywhere else in the world—advocate this tactic. Limited road-pricing schemes that have been adopted in Singapore, Norway, and London only affect congestion in crowded downtowns, which is not the kind of congestion on major arteries that most Americans experience.

Agreed. On the other hand, I disagree with Downs when he claims that we can't make the situation at least a little better. He states that "living with congestion... is the sole viable option," and discounts the options of "greatly expanding road capacity" and "greatly expanding public transit capacity." While I agree that constantly expanding road capacity is impractical, I think he has given up on public transportation (in the form of rail systems) too easily. If trains were available in more areas (connecting neighboring cities, and connecting downtown areas to the suburbs), I think many commuters would use them. No, I don't expect it to eliminate all congestion, but I do think trains (above or below ground) would help.

I completely disagree with Downs' suggestion for more HOT and HOV lanes. As taxpayers, we all should have the right to use all lanes on public highways. HOV lanes don't reduce traffic. All they do is create a dangerous situation (the far left lanes are supposed to be overtaking lanes, with slower traffic keeping to the right, but with HOV lanes, the slow traffic is also on the left) and raise easy revenue by collecting fines from those who invariably violate HOV lane restrictions. One can drive 20mph over the speed limit during rush hour and not get a second look from a police officer, because they're all watching the HOV lane for easy tickets.

Most solo drivers don't change their driving habits just to use the HOV lane, so if there are no patrol cars around, that lane is constantly being violated by l... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Stefanie wrote:
I think you're right about that. I don't think charging peak-hour tolls is feasible, and Anthony Downs further explains why in a related article:

Anthony Downs wrote:
Transportation economists have long been proponents of this tactic, but most Americans reject this solution politically for two reasons. Tolls would favor wealthier or subsidized drivers and harm poor ones, so most Americans would resent them, partly because they believe they would be at a disadvantage.

Well, that's a reasonable argument, but also one that was addressed in the original article. To wit, some percentage (about 1/3 based on a few samples), of the collections would be redirected into subsidies for low-income drivers who would otherwise be harmed by the opportunity cost of driving into the cordon. There are a number of compaints I can imagine in response to this, not least of which is the administrative overhead, but I think all are tractable.

Anthony Downs wrote:
The second drawback is that people think these tolls would be just another tax, forcing them to pay for something they have already paid for through gasoline taxes. For both these reasons, few politicians in our democracy—and so far, anywhere else in the world—advocate this tactic. Limited road-pricing schemes that have been adopted in Singapore, Norway, and London only affect congestion in crowded downtowns, which is not the kind of congestion on major arteries that most Americans experience.

The author is also cognizant that educating the public about the difference between taxation and paying for something is one of the main hurdles to such schemes. Again, the economic argument is that driving is currently cheaper than it's *real* cost, becuase harm to the environment, business development, etc., are undervalued. Americans will probably largely reject this argument on reflex, but I think it has a great deal of merit. Still, merit doesn't make things happen, necessarily.

...I disagree with Downs when he claims that we can't make the situation at least a little better. He states that "living with congestion... is the sole viable option," and discounts the options of "greatly expanding road capacity" and "greatly expanding public transit capacity." While I agree that constantly expanding road capacity is impractical, I think he has given up on public transportation (in the form of rail systems) too easily. If trains were available in more areas (connecting neighboring cities, and connecting downtown areas to the suburbs), I think many commuters would use them. No, I don't expect it to eliminate all congestion, but I do think trains (above or below ground) ... [ Read More (1.0k in body) ]

k wrote:
Well, it depends on your definition of "necessary", but I concede that many people have little choice in the matter, and are heavily affected by increases in gasoline prices. Though, I might ask why you *must* live 70 miles from work. That's partially rhetorical...

That's a perfectly reasonable question (rhetorical or not) for anyone affected by this. I'm originally from Nashville, which is where I currently work. I live in Murfreesboro, 35 miles away (the "70" above referred to the round trip), because it's much less expensive (even with the current gasoline situation) and because that's where most of my friends live. If my survival were on the line, yes, I could always move closer to work or get a new job, the former being the easier option, considering I'm 20 years into my current job.

However, if I were to reach that point of desperation, I'm sure I wouldn't be alone, and with the higher demand, living expenses would be even more expensive, the closer I moved to my job. Right now, even with the PITA daily commute, my quality of life is much better doing what I'm doing, and I'll keep doing it unless it becomes an economic burden. It's bad enough for me to bitch about it sometimes, but not enough of a personal crisis to require drastic action. My situation is probably a common one.

...continued from yesterday...

Still, merit doesn't make things happen, necessarily.

Amen.

But perhaps tax is the wrong way to handle it. Maybe all roads should be toll roads. Maybe you should pay per mile driven. I don't know. The point is that the word tax is loaded, but the goal must be kept in mind.

Anyway, you want to pay less to drive? Tell it to the oil companies. They'll happily "apologize" from atop their mountains of profit.

The oil companies aren't to blame for high gas prices, and I have no problem with their profits. Oil is a good business to be in right now, because worldwide demand is higher than ever. Our government's policies regarding exploration, drilling, and refining within our country have more to do with current prices than the actions of the oil companies.

Then, we have the issue of taxes making gas more expensive than it should be, which brings us back on topic. "Tax" is indeed a loaded word, and for good reason. We don't need to address the problem by taxing it, either through higher taxes on oil/gasoline or through new user fees, such as highway tolls. We already pay enough taxes to have sufficient infrastructure, but the money isn't being spent where it's needed.

Infrastructure is a legitimate government expenditure, and I have no problem with my tax dollars going toward road and rail systems, or other types of public transportation. Our society can't function without modern systems of transportation. The problem is that more taxation seems to be the government's solution to everything, and too large a portion of our federal and state budgets are being spent on endeavors in which government should not be involved, rather than being allocated to the necessities specified in the federal and state constitutions.

That's the reason taxpayers balk at new taxes for anything, and why it's difficult to get public support for something as logical and necessary as rail systems in areas with congested highways. We've already sent the money to the government, it just needs to be correctly utilized. We can't continue raising taxes indefinitely.

Of course, we're getting into the politics of "which things should be included in the list of government's legitimate functions," but I think that's necessary in order to address the transportation issue. Whereas I would support cutting current government expenditures in other areas to pay for a rail system in Tennessee, others would rather look for additional revenue (taxes & fees) for the project. Everyone could be in complete agreement on what to do to reach the goal, but if we can't agree on how to pay for it, it doesn't matter.

Things should cost what they actually cost. Where they don't, someone's getting fucked. In this case, it's all of us, though not necessarily equally...

So, where, specifically, is the inequity? Are you referring ... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

The oil companies aren't to blame for high gas prices, and I have no problem with their profits. Oil is a good business to be in right now, because worldwide demand is higher than ever. Our government's policies regarding exploration, drilling, and refining within our country have more to do with current prices than the actions of the oil companies.

We are certainly in the realm of politics now. I'll say a couple of things on this however. One is that after the oil crisis in the 70's, when oil became cheaper again, rather than pass those new lower costs on to the consumer, the real price of gasoline only dropped slightly, and the oil companies took home record profits (sound familiar?). The free market only functions as it should when people are paying attention and can take corporations to task when they act against the consumer's interest. Thus, prices stayed unnaturally high all the way until today.

But frankly, that's mostly irrelevant, because I'm not really on an anti-oil-company crusade, but rather hope to expose the real costs of our automobile centric culture.

I'd like to hear more about the policies that make domestic production of oil, because the main ones I know about are environmental. Frankly, the environment is a key place where the free market stumbles quite dangerously, because even people with similar data will frequently come up with wildly different valuation for various forms of environmental damage. This is further complicated by the difficulty in predicting unintended consequences -- and their attendant costs -- down the road.

I'm not a tree hugger. Saving "the environment" has little to do with some starry eyed desire to save the little bunnies for their own sake, but rather is all about ensuring that fitness for the entire range of human activies is maintained. Aesthetic considerations are a component of this calculus, but so are things like the quality of the air, the toxicity of ground water, biodiversity, etc. All of these issues represent a quality of life consideration for human beings.

I am of the opinion that these costs are underrepresented in the cost of automobile use. For this reason, I haven't got a problem with mechanisms that seek to bring those costs more into line with what I think is realistic.

Then, we have the issue of taxes making gas more expensive than it should be, which brings us back on topic. "Tax" is indeed a loaded word, and for good reason.

Not really a good reason. It all boils down to "Why should I pay for ?" I think that anti-tax crusaders consistently minimize the network effects of society and espouse an unrealistic vision of self-sufficiency.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blase about the potential for waste. I work for the government, and see it every day. But that's not a problem with taxation itself, but a problem of administration. Hating taxes because some of the ... [ Read More (0.7k in body) ]