Comments on: Who Should Get Revenues from Tollroads?

By: D King

D King — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:42:13 +0000

I’m also a co-author on this paper, and want to add two quick things to this discussion, though it is slowing down. First, to be clear about the intent of our paper, our basic argument doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t deal with equity or economic efficiency, but with political viability. We argue that on existing freeways will never be priced unless powerful political actors support it, and distributing congestion pricing revenue to the cities with freeways running through them will help to create this support. The political calculus would be different if we were only talking about new construction.
My second point is only a small correction. Please link to this version of the paper, as it is the version recently published in Transport Policy: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PoliticalCalculus.pdf

Thanks again for your attention and discussion.
DK

By: Mike Manville

Mike Manville — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:03:54 +0000

I’m a coauthor of the article in question, and I’m delighted to see our idea getting some attention on the Antiplanner. Here’s my quick response: Randal is quite correct that new roads should be tolled, and that the toll revenue should be used at least in part to build and maintain those roads. Our paper, though, deals with a somewhat knottier problem: how to price the roads we already have? None of the examples Randal mentions-Ã¢â‚¬â€the SR-91, the I-15, the Minneapolis lanes, etc.Ã¢â‚¬â€-involve converting an unrestricted road into a priced one. They involve either building a new road, converting a carpool lane to a toll lane, or converting an existing toll road into a variably-priced toll road. These are all worthy steps, but the vast majority of AmericaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s traffic congestion occurs on existing unpriced freeways, and in particular on unpriced freeways in dense metropolitan areas. In many of these places, there is simply no room to put new highways, or even expand the ones we have. In Los Angeles, for instance, building a new highway in the most congested areas would be extraordinarily difficult, both in terms of the land it would require and the political opposition it would face. A regional road-building authority in Los Angeles County would end up taking toll revenue generated in Pasadena or downtown LA and using it to build freeways in Lancaster, or Palmdale, or other places that have room for more highways but that also don’t suffer from the worst regional congestion. In other words, the regional authority would transfer money from drivers in the most congested areas to drivers in the least congested areas. That seems neither fair nor efficient, and it seems like a recipe for alienating the motorists who pay.

This is why weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like to see the money going to local governments. If toll revenue is returned on a per capita basis to the cities in a region, the money has a better chance of reaching those drivers who actually paid (the money will wind up in the more populated areas, which is where the congestion is worst and the tolls are highest). Moreover, many of the municipalities are likely to be small, and small governments tend to be less wasteful than large ones, and more responsive to the preferences of their residents. Does this mean the money wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be wasted? Of course not. Local governments of all sizes have been known to squander revenue. But if we are really worried about wasting money, does anyone truly think a giant regional road-building authority will be a model of efficiency? We think the toll revenue will be better spentÃ¢â‚¬â€and better appreciated by motoristsÃ¢â‚¬â€if it is returned to the communities where motorists live and used for public services that they value.

Cheers,

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:54:41 +0000

This is true in Seattle too, as Larry Frank has found. The reason is due to the lack of mode choice.

By: johngalt

johngalt — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:31:08 +0000

Access to a car has more of an impact on wages than education.

A study done by Kerri Sullivan at Portland State University examined the effects of car ownership on employment and wages for adults without a high school diploma in Portland. She found that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Car ownership improved the likelihood of being employed by 80 percent. The effect on average weekly wages was approximately $275, and the effect on weeks worked was approximately 8.5 weeks.Ã¢â‚¬Â

By: davek

davek — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:37:24 +0000

In his book “Don’t Call It Sprawl”, William T. Bogart warns against overstating the negative impact caused by the relatively lower mobility of the poor, children, and the elderly. Bogart points out that many of the non-driving elderly suffer from physical or mental disabilities that cannot be overcome by pedestrian friendly design or mass-transit. These folks were previously tended by their adult children, but societal trends toward independent living have made this more problematic. Likewise, children do not enjoy the same freedom of movement in the modern era that they did in past generations, because parents keep closer tabs. In both cases, changing social norms are to blame, rather than auto-centrism.

Bogart also argues that people who are too poor to own cars make up a small percentage of the population, and are better served by programs that enable them to use cars, rather than imposing anti-automobile policies on everyone else.

By: JimKarlock

JimKarlock — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:31:22 +0000

Dan said:b DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t forget to end subsidies for roads, too.
JK: OK:
First…make the transit agency pay for their road use.
Second..make bikers pay for exclusive road areas (bike lanes)
Third…See how much subsidy is left over for roads and charge ALL users their fair share.

Thanks
JK

By: The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 06:12:35 +0000

Thank you everyone for some great comments.

By: Tad Winiecki

Tad Winiecki — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:26:18 +0000

Taxes, user fees, external costs and subsidies are terms which can lead to confusion and many different definitions depending on one’s economic and political views.
Some people say, “Bicyclists don’t pay taxes.” There are probably some bicyclists who don’t pay taxes; these are mostly children who never buy anything – their parents buy everything for them and pay taxes.
I am a bicyclist and I pay sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes and income taxes. Part of these taxes pay for roads used by trucks which do more damage to the roads than the truckers pay in fees and taxes. Part of the taxes pay for health care for people harmed by air pollution caused by cars, trucks, buses, trains, and planes. Part of the taxes pay for the US military to protect our supply of oil from foreign countries.
If you stretch the definition of subsidy a little you could say that the child riding his bicycle is subsidizing part of the external cost of the air pollution from the vehicles and planes.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:32:02 +0000

Don’t forget to end subsidies for roads, too.

That local general fund money could be better spent elsewhere, surely, like reversing the autocentric transport network and making ped-bike safety a priority, as not everyone can drive {e.g. everyone under 16, the poor, the elderly).

By: JimKarlock

JimKarlock — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:10:17 +0000

If we are going to do it right and truly let the market work, we must have the users pay for what they use and that includes transit:

* End ALL subsidies to transit
* End ALL subsidies to bikes.
* End any subsidies that happen to exist for automobiles.

Ending transit and bike subsidies will free up BILLIONS for road congeston relief.

Thanks
JK