tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post5775723137394905256..comments2024-03-19T20:20:10.705+13:00Comments on Road Pricing: Chicago congestion pricing proposal involves HOT lanes and peak tollsScott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-7213945666000677392013-01-11T23:10:47.016+13:002013-01-11T23:10:47.016+13:00I can't imagine there being a single governmen...I can't imagine there being a single government intervention in any area that wouldn't have disproportionate impacts across groups - by definition virtually all government actions mean some extract rents, others face costs. You can't avoid that, it becomes a political and philosophical question about what is equitable.<br /><br />A new lane on an existing highway or the conversion of a HOV lane to a tolled lane will have minimal impact upon those living adjacent to the highway. There are serious issues about the use of eminent domain to take land for public (let alone private use)- and I am highly critical of running roughshod over private property rights in such a way (particularly for private developments, but that's another story).<br /><br />There are approaches taken elsewhere to deal with the effects of building new highways on those adjacent to it. In France, the state and private highway developers, and the national rail network operator, offer land owners double market value to buy up the corridors, so get multiple offers, and then choose the best option for building the corridor. Taking a proper commercial cost accounting approach to these costs means that projects can be evaluated based on returning these land costs over a very long period. I know the US remains in the dark ages compared to many in treating highways as depreciated assets. It doesn't help that the US also runs publicly owned transit monopolies that deliver service standards well below those of commercial privately owned (and publicly owned) operators in Europe and Australasia. It should be entirely feasible for anyone to set up a competing operation with a few buses to meet demand or generate demand.<br /><br />You're right there needs to be a more fundamental look at the whole system. The bankruptcy of the Federal (and some state) highway trust funds needs to be addressed, and maintenance/renewal of existing networks should be a priority - but it needs to be depoliticised, and to be put on a more rational funding system that secures revenue for the longer term. I admit that I am unsure why, if there is efficient pricing of highways, that urban public transit can't also be self sustaining - given that intercity public transport is (when you ignore Amtrak outside the north-eastern corridor).<br /><br />I don't believe a priced lane generates equal benefits for all, but I don't believe that a conversion of a HOT lane is negative for anyone (except HOV users on the margins). If a new lane is financially viable on an existing corridor, then as long as it doesn't infringe upon the property rights of others, I see little reason to oppose it.<br /><br />However, it is clear that the enthusiasm for HOT lanes is somewhat of a short term distraction from the absence of a long term strategy for highways.Scott Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-1077309911787487642013-01-11T09:09:56.178+13:002013-01-11T09:09:56.178+13:00Where there exist disproportionate impacts and ben...Where there exist disproportionate impacts and benefits across demographic groups, there are either vertical or horizontal equity problems, sometimes both, of course. <br /><br />A new priced lane, alone, does not equally benefit all demographic groups, nor does it generate equal impacts amongst groups. At the same time, such lanes add very little economic value to the communities they pass through; there are opportunity costs.<br /><br />As you may know, urban expressways slice through many low-to-moderate income neighborhoods exhibiting low vehicle ownership. Chicago is no exception. The Illinois Department of Transportation has identified regionally significant concentrations of such populations within their I-290 project area. There is a regionally significant employment center just 8 miles, or so, west of Chicago. It can take a car as little as 13 minutes to make the trip, or perhaps 35 minutes during peak traffic. <br /><br />It can easily take a transit rider over two hours for the same trip. Therefore, the entry level retail and service jobs are not accessible to concentrations of unemployed and underemployed people and employers have difficulty filling the jobs. That is not a win for anyone.<br /><br />What does one label the distribution of costs and benefits when an investment does not provide equal advantage to all (or even a majority) and, at the same time, both amplifies adverse impacts and presents opportunity costs to those not sharing in the benefits? Some would say it's an inequitable use of public resources, others might call it disadvantageous to broad swaths of the public, and yet others, like my grandfather, might just label it a billion-dollar boondoggle.<br /><br />That is not how American will remain competitive in the 21st century. <br /><br />We can't keep building billion dollar boondoggles designed and intended to serve a very small portion of the traveling public. This is an especially egregious error when one has abundant evidence gathered over 50 years of highway construction and expansion clearly illuminating the glaring fact that highway design and capacity enhancements, alone, no longer generate a positive return on investment. The highway trust fund is insolvent. The general fund is diverting money to it in an effort to keep it afloat. All the while, bridges collapse and drivers dodge potholes, etc.<br /><br />We need to be thinking and investing in a much more coordinated fashion. We can't keep building out the most complex road network on the planet while allowing bike and transit networks to remain little better than a loosely connected group of cattle paths.<br /><br />We need to effectively link investments to desirable outcomes, not some highway engineer’s constrained understanding of regional problems and what is needed to solve them, but multidisciplinary critical thought about relationships between land-use, transportation, and the economy. For instance, is a priced lane to benefit a few drivers in and of itself a desirable outcome for a staggering public investment? What regional outcomes does it support, and which does it undermine?<br /><br />The goal attached to a billion dollar project can't be to help a tiny portion of the traveling public move a little faster than their counterparts stuck in even worse congestion than before.<br /><br />The point, here, is not that road pricing is evil, or that highways are bad, but rather that in order to be effective in advancing regional goals, pricing absolutely must be combined with commensurate investments in the complimentary transit network. That necessarily involves revenue sharing, as well.<br /><br />Surely you jest that a new priced lane generates equal benefits for all and avoids disproportionate impacts for others . . .<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-18492634679238195322013-01-11T00:37:25.131+13:002013-01-11T00:37:25.131+13:00Note my point was "new" toll lanes, as i...Note my point was "new" toll lanes, as it offers additional capacity at a price. Those who do not use it, are not disadvantaged, unless the new lanes are not financially viable, in which case the disadvantage is disaggregated amongst millions of taxpayers. I am critical of the roll out of toll lanes which are essentially still subsidised new highway capacity.<br /><br />Your point about the equity implications of pricing strategies is correct if this is about charging existing capacity and does not involve an offsetting reduction in other taxes. In such cases there can be some serious short term issues about access to employment for those who may be priced out of their jobs (in the long run if pricing is set efficiently, then it should result in relocation of economic activity and modest changes in wage patterns). It is a much touted myth that the response to pricing must always be an alternative publicly provided mode. It is simply not viable to always do this. There are alternatives such as better targeted pricing, discounts and offsetting tax reductions that are likely to deliver more efficient outcomes.<br /><br />In the Chicago case it is not congestion pricing on existing capacity, so the equity issues do not arise. Those who drive now on existing capacity can continue to do so. Those who use public transit will do so, and may see an improvement if services use the tolled lanes.<br /><br />There is a wider argument about the use of revenues from road pricing. Some argue that it should provide a pool of funding to support alternative modes, others argue that it can correct pricing distortions between modes allowing public transit to stand on its own financially (like virtually all other transport modes can do).Scott Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-89779386212751814122013-01-10T12:03:57.694+13:002013-01-10T12:03:57.694+13:00"New toll routes or toll lanes don't disa..."New toll routes or toll lanes don't disadvantage anyone, but offer a new opportunity."<br /><br />I agree that pricing represents an invaluable tool in addressing urban congestion; however, it is entirely misleading to suggest that toll lanes don't disadvantage anyone. <br /><br />Clearly, they do, and there is plenty of peer reviewed literature to support that representation.<br /><br />This is particularly true where similar levels of investment are not being made in alternatives to paying the price. In order to offset the equity implications of pricing strategies, there needs to be a reliable, affordable, and efficient alternative. In urban areas that genrally translates into high quality transit; not busses running a short distance on a hot lane and then in mixed traffic to yield an unbearably long and unreliable trip, but genuine alternatives to driving. <br /><br />Importantly, transit must be developed at the same time as priced-lane implementation, not at some ill-defined later date in a follow-on study with no identified funding source. Furthermore, revenues from pricing should support both highway and transit capital and operating in the corridor of travel.<br /><br />Configured to benefit both highways and transit, equity implications are minimized or eliminated and both highway and tranit operating efficiencies are maximized.<br /><br />Win-win. Unfortunately, pricing strategies are being positioned to lose - now that's disappointing as they hold a lot of promise.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com