Breakfast links: Those crazy economists

by David Alpert • October 14, 2009 8:07 am

Photo by Wootang01.

Freaky congestion pricing: Transport for London studied the economic costs and benefits of congestion pricing and found that even drivers end up with a net economic surplus, while bus riders get an even bigger one. But congestion pricing is still politically unpopular, even in London. Eric Morris wonders whether that's because people can't see all the time they're saving. If so, perhaps roads with some free and some pay lanes are the better way to go than all-toll. (Freakonomics, jconway)

Pricing's defenders: Plenty of urbanist economists rebutted last week's WSJ op-ed by David Owen arguing that it's better to let congestion be really bad than try to fix it with congestion pricing. Charles Komanoff notes that it really has worked in London, not induced more traffic as Owen argued. Ryan Avent points out the atrocious optics of even suggesting making people more unhappy (even if it were the right answer, which it's not). And Daniel Nairn categorizes the approaches to congestion very succinctly: build supply, manage demand by queueing, and manage demand by pricing. (Streetsblog, The Bellows, Discovering Urbanism)

E-ZPass is good for babies: A recent study found that parents with E-ZPass had healthier babies. No, the transponders don't have magical healing powers. But not spending so much time in traffic amid tailpipe emissions is healthier, and the researchers used parents with and without E-ZPass as a way to get at the effect of exposing babies to less congestion. (How We Drive)

Drunk walking the real scourge?: The upcoming Freakonomics sequel comes to the bizarre conclusion that drunk walking is more dangerous than drunk driving. Really? It doesn't really look that way. They conclude that more drunk pedestrians are killed per mile than drivers, though that artificially inflates the rate because the pedestrians travel so much less. Also, we have little data about how much drunken moving takes place, and if a pedestrian gets hit while drunk even if alcohol is not a factor, it gets coded as a drunk pedestrian. (How We Drive)

Waste our money on parking or we won't lend it to you: What's the biggest obstacle to more transit-oriented development? Banks and their outdated lending practices, argues a Salt Lake Tribune article. Lenders demand lots of parking in projects they fund, even if the developer doesn't think it's necessary. Of course, zoning codes and unwilling developers have something to do with it, too. (Via City Block)

Driving phone ban is working: DC's bad on handheld phones while driving is probably making driving safer, even if plenty of drivers ignore the law. The almost 13,000 tickets DC writes a year have driven the rate down: it declined 41% when the ban too effect and stayed 43% lower than the level researchers estimate had there been no ban. (Post, Cavan)

And...: Fairfax has approved the special tax district necessary to build the second phase of the Silver Line (Post, Cavan, Joey) ... Most cities are not prepared for the Census, which will likely mean big undercounts (Pew Charitable Trusts, Lynda) ... An upcoming building in College Park has abandoned a planned atrium that would cool the building, because it's too expensive. Rethink College Park wishes they could have saved money on the parking instead.

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

10 comments Share	— tags: alcohol, census, College Park, congestion pricing, DC, distracted driving, economics, enforcement, excessive parking, Fairfax, links, London, Maryland, pedestrians, Prince George's, public health, Silver Line, TOD, Virginia

Golden Gate congestion pricing out, performance parking in (Aug 20, 2008)
Field report: San Francisco congestion pricing workshop (Aug 5, 2008)
How do economists react to a parking post? (Jun 4, 2008)
Conservatives for congestion pricing (Feb 8, 2007)
Congestion pricing, pro and incoherent (Nov 22, 2005)

Comments

the freakonomics people are the ones who now don't believe in global warming, right?

I realize that is an attack by association, but quoting studies from organizations that RUN the congestion charge scheme that find benefits isn't, well, intellectually rigorous?

Charging vehicles $15 to get into the CBD is going to have a huge distorting effect on future development that can't be measured by saying "so there are less cars of the road."

And re: drunk walkers, the stats also don't show when a drunk driver gets into an accident whether alcohol is a contributing factor. It is assumed by the law -- but it is not always the case.

by charlie on Oct 14, 2009 8:22 am

Another problem with securing New Urb financing has been for a long time the suburban bias of FHA backed loans. I admittedly haven't looked into this in detail but what I understand is the FHA guidelines put a major break on housing that is only the suburban sprawl model. The regulations were written in the 1940s and 50s and have yet to be substantially rewritten to allow for TOD and urban infill development.

Certainly banks, developers and builders are uncreative for the most part when they see a mostly untried business model compared to their current model, but the factor of regulation needs to be understood as well.

I'd be curious to see what developers out there have radically rethought the sprawl business model considering how it essentially has failed.

by Boots on Oct 14, 2009 8:50 am

I'd be curious to see what developers out there have radically rethought the sprawl business model considering how it essentially has failed.

Well it hasn't failed for the developers. Once they've sold the house or recouped investments, it's a success. It's really only failed in a limited financial metric for counties that have run out of land, like Arlington.

by цarьchitect on Oct 14, 2009 9:02 am

I know most people interested in urban planning love to whine and moan, but this is remarkable - a voluntary tax district and driver tolls paying for rail transit. Isn't this James Kunstler's dream?

But not surprisingly - the trains good/cars bad crowd will not make much of this news, and will keep crying about people who don't want to hear their neighbors arguing above the ceiling.

by David on Oct 14, 2009 10:22 am

Sprawl has failed for developers in the limited sense that they used to be considered community heroes and are now almost universally considered villains. They still make their money, but they've become the bad guys.

Sprawl has also failed non-landlocked jurisdictions because the cost of providing services are impossibly high. The only way to pay for it is to get lots of people from other jurisdictions to work/shop there, feeding money into the government without requiring services. This leads to competition among jurisdictions, which in turn causes some to succeed and others to fail. This is why Fairfax can pay for good services but Prince George's can't, despite the fact that PG has more remaining empty land.

by BeyondDC on Oct 14, 2009 10:35 am

@David, Can I have some cheese with the whine?

by Bianchi on Oct 14, 2009 10:38 am

I said it failed in a limited financial metric. No need to convince me, BDC.

As for evil developers... Even city and new urban developers have become villains. Come to the ANC 3E meeting next month and tell everyone that you work for Akridge. It'll be fun.

by цarьchitect on Oct 14, 2009 10:43 am

Rather, that it didn't fail in a limited financial metric.

by цarьchitect on Oct 14, 2009 10:45 am

The description here of the EZPass study is wrong. The article evaluates the health of infants living near toll booths where congestion has been reduced because of EZPass versus the health of infants in a "control group" where there are not toll booths at which EZPass could reduce the congestion.

It has nothing to do with whether the parents themselves use an EZPass to reduce their time waiting at toll booths, which is what your squib suggests.

by ah on Oct 14, 2009 10:51 am

Avent seems to be the only one clearly addresses the conflation of problems:

Congestion pricing is intended to reduce congestion. It may have environmental benefits as well. Or it may not. But that's beside the point (or something taken up separately). The key point is to reduce the time everyone wastes in traffic jams.

As for why people oppose it--why do people oppose scalpers and everything where you pay a premium to avoid waiting? Because lots of people prefer not to monetize their wait time. They'd rather queue overnight than pay ticketmaster $10 for "convenience" or a scalper double for the seats that require an overnight campout.

by ah on Oct 14, 2009 10:56 am