Roads
15 cents a mile for no traffic?
If the Washington region charged around 15 cents per mile for use of the region's freeways around rush hour, traffic congestion would virtually disappear, the Federal Highway Administration concluded in a recent report. Cutting the number of cars by 10 to 14 percent would actually reduce delays by 75 to 80 percent. A simple, low congestion charge would do just that.
Photo by derang0.
It's a well documented fact of traffic that congestion isn't proportional to the number of cars. Adding ten percent of cars doesn't just lengthen each trip by ten percent. Roadways have a "tipping point," where free-flowing traffic suddenly turns into stop-and-go gridlock. Once a road "crashes" in this way, it's very difficult to speed the cars back up. Some regions have tried to manage this problem with metering lights on ramps, which limit the numbers of cars that can enter. However, drivers chafe at waiting in a long queue to enter a freeway while cars already on the road zip by, creating political pressure to turn off or shorten metering light times.
According to a MWCOG survey, 7.7% of car trips in the morning rush are "discretionary," meaning drivers could go at other times. Shopping trips or visits to friends, for example, count as discretionary, while trips to work or the airport do not. In the evening peak, that number rises to 10.5%. If we could create an incentive for some of those drivers to take their trips at other times, and for some commuters to shift to transit, carpools, or telecommuting, FHWA believes that we would reduce demand on the freeways below the "tipping point."
Would a congestion charge reduce car trips enough? Adding peak surcharges onto existing tolls in New York and Florida cut vehicle trips by 7%. Variable tolls in Seattle and on the New Jersey Turnpike reduced it 13-15%. And the more substantial center-city congestion programs in Singapore and London reduced it 20-30%. Most of these programs also increased HOV and transit use as well.
FHWA recommends an initial charge of 15 cents per mile along congested roadways like I-270, I-95, and the Beltway. Carpools of 3 or more people would travel for free, as would buses. Drivers would pay through E-ZPass transponders, avoiding any delays for payment. The major obstacle, as the report points out, is political will.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
by ah on May 19, 2009 1:54 pm • link • report
by Danush on May 19, 2009 2:00 pm • link • report
by ah on May 19, 2009 2:20 pm • link • report
by Shahar Goldin on May 19, 2009 3:01 pm • link • report
by KB on May 19, 2009 3:22 pm • link • report
by Local on May 19, 2009 3:28 pm • link • report
You will never get people out of their car by pestering them. They need to see that transit is a better alternative. Obviously, transit needs to be better then. In DC, it isn't. Especially not in the outer regions, which is where most commuters come from.
We are already charged for roadways, through our taxes. Should we pay twice for our roads? It is incredibly inefficient to collect minute amounts of money individually, compared to doing it through taxes. Can you imaging the administration that comes with doing this? Given the many examples of EZPass careless tolls collections, the whole thing will be a mess. Many people will also start using local roads to avoid the tolls.
Furthermore: everybody uses the roads, not just commuters. Your strawberries do not walk from California to your local Wholefoods. They come by truck. Charging more tolls will only make life more expensive for everybody.
by Jasper on May 19, 2009 3:33 pm • link • report
by Jasper on May 19, 2009 3:35 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on May 19, 2009 3:38 pm • link • report
We need to find an integrated approach to transportation. Current focus should be on more transit, but we can not do without roads.
by Jasper on May 19, 2009 3:54 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on May 19, 2009 4:06 pm • link • report
Jasper: Those strawberries are more likely to go bad while the truck is sitting in traffic. Plus, the strawberry company has to pay the driver for all the time he's wasting in traffic.
Replace strawberries with aluminum. Not everything is perishable.
And your second point proves you've never taken economics. How does paying the driver for sitting in traffic help anyone? It increases costs with no value being added, which is obviously economic deadweight.
by MPC on May 19, 2009 4:27 pm • link • report
Non-perishable goods especially should go by rail, which is much cheaper, and can always move at off-peak times of the day. Mostly they do.
by David Alpert on May 19, 2009 4:31 pm • link • report
This is a similar situation. Complaining about paying $3 to save, say, 20 minutes of time only makes sense if you make less than $9 per hour. You intrinsically value your time, whether or not you ever think to put a dollar value on it. People that take back-roads to avoid paying are probably wasting even more of their time than they would be just sitting in traffic so it makes even less economical sense.
Also, you very well may save maintenance costs on your car as stop-and-go driving is much harder on your car than normal highway driving.
One last point: People that live the furthest out already drive outside of conventional rush hour in many cases. This $0.15/mile charge just further incentivizes that practice and might drive others to follow suit.
Great article (I nag my wife with the whole tipping point of a system discussion more or less weekly... now I can point her to this article and say, "See!!!").
by Nick Partee on May 19, 2009 5:03 pm • link • report
This is a similar situation. Complaining about paying $3 to save, say, 20 minutes of time only makes sense if you make less than $9 per hour. You intrinsically value your time, whether or not you ever think to put a dollar value on it. People that take back-roads to avoid paying are probably wasting even more of their time than they would be just sitting in traffic so it makes even less economical sense.
Also, you very well may save maintenance costs on your car as stop-and-go driving is much harder on your car than normal highway driving.
One last point: People that live the furthest out already drive outside of conventional rush hour in many cases. This $0.15/mile charge just further incentivizes that practice and might drive others to follow suit.
Great article (I nag my wife with the whole tipping point of a system discussion more or less weekly... now I can point her to this article and say, "See!!!").
by Nick Partee on May 19, 2009 5:04 pm • link • report
Tolls are sneaky taxes, because politicians can hide behind the toll collectors. If politicians want more money, they should have to guts to increase taxes, and motivate to the public why they need the money, and not steal it from the public's pockets while hiding behind fake motives.
And to those who think that $3 a day, or $750 does not excite the masses should think of their feelings when they got their Bush and Obama tax rebates. Furthermore, these $3 (actually $6 in my eexample) are spend during hours that people do not work, so it is a loss. Nobody wants to suddenly pay $1500 more a year to go to work.
by Jasper on May 19, 2009 5:19 pm • link • report
2. We do have enough transit to handle 10-14% more people (and some would telecommute). Plus, congestion pricing revenue will help us expand what we have. Transit options will not add many precious hours of travel time to the long commutes we have. It will add cheap travel time (less than 15 cents a mile by definition). Those who truly need to drive will. Those who don't won't.
3. You won't get people out of their cars by subsidizing them. You have to price driving to capture all of the negative externalities - including congestion. And roads are clearly too cheap or people wouldn't line up to use them.
4.This is a more efficient tax. Right now, people pay a tax in time and pollution. Congestion pricing charges then a tax in money. The advantage is that the government can use that money to make things better whereas the time is just gone (That's what Jim Croce was talking about people!)
5. My strawberries and aluminum should be delivered at 2am when no one else is using the road and it's free.
6. "How does paying the driver for sitting in traffic help anyone?" It doesn't. That's David's point. You need to reread it. He's saying that NOW you pay him to sit in traffic which is useless. But with congestion pricing you'd pay him to drive. His economics is fine.
by David C on May 19, 2009 5:32 pm • link • report
For whatever reason we decided that the government should provide roads - and that they should be free to use. But that doesn't really make sense. Clean water isn't free. Ambulances aren't free. You can't even use National Parks for free. By making roads free we encourage people to overuse them. We want people to use them "just the right amount." That requires us to charge for them.
You can offset this by lowering some other tax if you want and it's still a good idea.
by David C on May 19, 2009 5:45 pm • link • report
by Anne on May 19, 2009 6:14 pm • link • report
Jasper, a lump tax does not impact behavior. You are more likely to avoid something if there is a cost associated with it.
by Nick Partee on May 19, 2009 6:55 pm • link • report
It is called a gas tax people. deal with it.
by charlie on May 19, 2009 9:18 pm • link • report
I agree. But it's not gonna happen. Open source and non-proprietary things go against the constitution. Or so. They say. Whatever.
Transit options will not add many precious hours of travel time to the long commutes we have.
Tell me please how it doesn't for someone who lives in Occoquan and works in Ft Washington. Or someone who lives in Rockville and works in Reston.
And roads are clearly too cheap or people wouldn't line up to use them.
So by that argument, metro is too cheap in rush hour too. Dunno if you ever took an orange line at rush hour.
For whatever reason we decided that the government should provide roads - and that they should be free to use. But that doesn't really make sense.
Roads aren't free! Roads are what you pay taxes for. This is the opposite BS argument from the one where transit should make money.
And yes, I'd like free roads and free transit. And yes, I'd gladly pay $150 a month ($1800 a year) more taxes for that, since that's what I spend on transportation anyway. Where's the politician with the ball to take me up on it?
You can't even use National Parks for free.
Which is wrong too. If tax payers decide a park is so special we can pay to protect is, entrance should be free. That's what you pay taxes for. And yes, the government can increase my taxes with $80 a year to substitute my park pass. And actually, all NPs in DC are free. I haven't paid for visiting the FDR Memorial, nor for the Roosevelt Island. Except perhaps the Wash Mon. Dunno if you have to pay to get up there.
by Jasper on May 19, 2009 9:38 pm • link • report
I don't want the government changing my behavior through my purse. I want the government changing behavior by showing alternate options are better. I want to make a choice to be on the road, or in transit based on which ever one is most convenient. Going to central DC? I want transit. Supermarket? Bike or car. Central WV? Probably a car. Central NY? A fast train please. Central Montana? Probably a plane and a car. Central LA? Plane + transit.
Different places need different transportation needs. I want the government to build the most efficient transportation system possible. Efficient in terms of time, cost and environment. So that means transit for dense areas, cars for rural areas, fast trains for mid distance (anything in hundreds of miles), and planes for long distance (thousands of miles). And then I want those systems to be as efficient with energy as possible.
by Jasper on May 19, 2009 9:44 pm • link • report
Charlie, I don't have anything to back it up, but I get the impression that people will be more influenced to change behavior based on how close an actual activity comes to impacting their wallet. Congestion fees can be avoided by avoiding congestion driving. People that go into work early or late receive an incentive for avoiding congestion driving, as do those that carpool (using the model outlined in this article). That's why I think a congestion fee would be a little more effective at getting people off the road or in a carpool during rush hour than a gas tax (plus, I think a gas tax is more regressive).
by Nick Partee on May 19, 2009 10:13 pm • link • report
Tell me please how it doesn't for someone who lives in Occoquan and works in Ft Washington. Or someone who lives in Rockville and works in Reston.
Those people will almost surely drive and pay, move or telecommute.
And roads are clearly too cheap or people wouldn't line up to use them.
So by that argument, metro is too cheap in rush hour too. Dunno if you ever took an orange line at rush hour.
I have taken an orange line at rush hour and if things are running without failure you rarely have to wait for a second train. It does happen but not nearly as often. Still, yes we probably don't charge enough for Metro at rush hour on certain parts of the system - but Metro isn't inclined to create a more dynamic pricing structure.
For whatever reason we decided that the government should provide roads - and that they should be free to use. But that doesn't really make sense.
Roads aren't free! Roads are what you pay taxes for. This is the opposite BS argument from the one where transit should make money.
Roads aren't free. Using roads is free. No one charges you for how much road you use - they charge you for how much gasoline you use. If you had an electric car, you'd pay nothing (or close to it) to use the roads.
You can't even use National Parks for free.
Which is wrong too. If tax payers decide a park is so special we can pay to protect is, entrance should be free. That's what you pay taxes for. And actually, all NPs in DC are free.
I guess I should have said you can't use every National Park for free. Score one for you Jasper.
So you're position is that there should be one set of taxes charged to everyone to provide services, but then everyone should be allowed to use as much as they want. So if you use more, you don't pay more. If you use less, you don't pay less. I don't think that is a policy that encourages frugality.
by David C on May 19, 2009 11:17 pm • link • report
by fpteditors on May 20, 2009 9:04 am • link • report
Moving is not an option for anyone who owns a home right now.
you rarely have to wait for a second train.
So you are aware of the lack of personal space on the sardine packing in the trains. I would compare that to being stuck in traffic.
If you had an electric car, you'd pay nothing (or close to it) to use the roads.
I am sure they will tax us on that too by that time. Using roads is free. And it should be. You paid for building it. For the same reason transit should be free. Trust me, people will flock to transit.
When the Dutch government started negotiating with Dutch Rail and buses about giving all students free transit, everybody thought they were insane. Students would never leave the freedom of their crappy cars. Within a month of students having free transit, the first train party was held. Within half a year, the first student company offering extremely cheap package delivery from anywhere to anywhere, as long as it had a bus stop was a fact. And by now, a whole generation of students have grown up without ever owning a car before their late 20s, early 30s.
I have cited the example of the Belgian city of Hasselt. There are experiments with free transit all over the world. All of them are a massive success. Nobody (serious) ever complains about the tax increase that pays for the "free" transit.
So you're position is that there should be one set of taxes charged to everyone to provide services, but then everyone should be allowed to use as much as they want.
My position is that we have a government to take care of things individuals can not do on their own. Building transportation infrastructure is one of those things (just like national defense, police, the judicial system, etc). We allow the government to tax us to recoup the cost. For all of these services, you can not charge an individual for the use.
Do we charge people in criminal neighborhoods more for police services than people who live in safe neighborhoods? Do people in distant rural areas pay less tax because they receive less services? Do people in central Missouri pay less for national defense because they live far from the borders, and in an area that no terrorist will ever attack? Do people who live in an urban area, and don't own a car, but have everything delivered to their home by Fedex pay less tax, because they never use roads? Of course not.
All these things are done by the government because their importance supersedes the individual. Every individual profits, though sometimes in a distant way.
Some Oklahoma senator thinks that his constituents do not profit from a Silver Line in our area. He is wrong. They do. Because many taxpayer dollars are now wasted while government employees are stuck in traffic. It pays for those Oklahoma citizen to invest in some infrastructure in DC, so their tax dollars are not wasted in traffic. Likewise, we in DC care about a good highway or railroads out there in Oklahoma, because we want fresh and unfrozen strawberries from California.
Some Louisiana governor got laughed at for suggesting his Louisiana constituents should not pay for volcano monitoring. He apparently missed the point that if the rest of the country had paid a bit more for good levees, his largest city would still exist.
I don't think that is a policy that encourages frugality.
Is it frugal that we waste billions by sitting in traffic, while killing the environment?
Last, if you want people to pay for the roads, do it through gas taxes. That also gives an incentive to drive in less polluting cars. It works. Why do you think gas prices are so high in Europe and they have so much more transit?
by Jasper on May 20, 2009 10:31 am • link • report
David is suggesting fixing this imbalance by raising the price of roads. You would like to fix it by lowering the cost of transit. Both would probably work.
But, as you point out, an increase in transit riders is eventually going to require an increase in transit infrastructure. So you'd have to raise taxes to cover the loss of transit revenue and again to expand transit.
Raising taxes, as you put it, requires "ball" or political will; and while there are politicians such as Tim Kaine who seem willing to raise taxes for transportation there do not appear to be enough, even at the modest levels required to maintain what we have - let alone a massive expansion combined with lower user fees.
What you're talking about would require an incredible change in the electorate - not an unheard of thing, look at how global warming opinions have changed, but not a simple thing either - that would allow for the increase of taxes to the tune of several billion dollars (trillions if carried out nationwide) to pay for transit that most people won't use directly. It's probably unrealistic to believe that something like that is in the cards.
Charging a user fee for roads - one that compares with the user fee for transit - is, in my opinion, more politically viable. But this isn't just a "realist" argument versus an "idealist" argument. Even if such political will existed, I would still be for a road user fee - though I'd be for free transit outside rush hour.
Road user fees have other advantages.
- It spreads out the rush hour, making the roads more efficient
- It encourages walking, biking and other active forms of transportation
- It encourages people to live closer to work when that is an option
- It encourages telecommuting, truly the most efficient way to commute
- It reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled (and all the negative externalities - which are not currently captured in the gas tax involved).
by David C on May 20, 2009 11:07 am • link • report
I have a few suggestions where we can cut cost. It's beyond the scope of this blog, but a link to this graph says enough. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/graph5.gif
- It spreads out the rush hour, making the roads more efficient
Rush hour in DC already goes from 6 to 9h30, and from 3-7. Noon to 7 on Fridays. How much further do you want to spread it?
- It encourages walking, biking and other active forms of transportation
No it doesn't. I can not walk or bike the 25 miles to work. This whole idea of people living close to their work denies the reality of families where both partners work. It is *very* hard to find two jobs that are close together.
- It encourages people to live closer to work when that is an option
Currently however, this is not an option for anybody who owns a home. Which is nearly everybody in suburbia.
- It encourages telecommuting, truly the most efficient way to commute
While I love the idea of telecommuting, it is not possible for loads of workers. Cops, teachers, nurses, retail, and let's not forget everybody in this region with a security clearance (everybody in the Pentagon, State Dept and Congress). Sorry, can't take your work home.
What you're talking about would require an incredible change in the electorate - ... It's probably unrealistic to believe that something like that is in the cards.
I agree. It's totally unrealistic. But it's equally unrealistic to believe that those same whimpy politicians that love their "hybrid" SUVs will ever do anything against drivers. And I think it's even less likely that any money from these congestion charge will benefit transit.
As long as Americans keep re-electing folks who were born in times when trains were going faster than now (http://www.slate.com/id/2218394/), nothing will change.
It's funny. A lot of people are very worried about the color and gender make-up of Congress. Nobody seems to worry about the omnipresence of grey hair.
by Jasper on May 20, 2009 11:36 am • link • report
I'm saying that some of these solutions will work for some people. And all that is needed is for it to work for 10-14% percent of people. The others will pay more and will be rewarded with a faster commute. You understand the difference right - the point is not to get EVERYONE off the road. So for whatever example you have of someone who HAS to drive I say - then they'll drive and pay for it. But not EVERYONE has to drive.
by David C on May 20, 2009 12:06 pm • link • report
by Douglas Willinger on May 20, 2009 12:42 pm • link • report
What we want is for people to get out of their cars. There are two ways of doing so. Voluntarily, or involuntarily. I say, we should try to get people to do it voluntarily, by showing that transit is faster, and more convenient, in stead of trying to punish or price people out of their cars.
I will not work. Not in a democracy. You can not create a democratically sustained policy that takes aim at the behavior of the majority of the people.
The only thing you can successfully do lure the majority into a solution to their problem.
The problem is congestion, right? I recently got stuck on I-66. It drove me insane that every 3 minutes, whooosh, there was another metro. AAAAH! I wanna be in that train. Unfortunately, my destination was beyond the end of the line.
The solution here is not to make me pay for being in that traffic jam, I already hated that. The solution is to extend the metro line to my destination (Burke).
We know it's true for roads. Build them, and they will clog up. We know it worked for the railroads, so that nowadays, trains go slower than in the 20s.
It's true for all infrastructure. Build it, keep it "free", and it will be used.
by Jasper on May 20, 2009 1:20 pm • link • report
you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
by Jasper on May 20, 2009 1:21 pm • link • report
by VegasTaxiDriverDotCom on May 20, 2009 1:42 pm • link • report
by Douglas Willinger on May 20, 2009 1:47 pm • link • report
It is more amazing that so little of the stimulus money will be used for more transit.
by Jasper on May 20, 2009 2:28 pm • link • report
by Froggie on May 20, 2009 6:09 pm • link • report
Or more accurately so little for transportation infrastructure, and so much for things as convention center hotels.
by Douglas Willinger on May 21, 2009 2:14 pm • link • report
Add a Comment