Distributional Consequences of Congestion Pricing in Los Angeles
Yesterday, Atrios said “It is true that congestion tolling would be somewhat of a regressive tax, though I think opponents of such things tend to overestimate the degree to which poor people drive, even in the LA metro area.”
It’s worth being clear about this. A congestion charge would almost certainly take a bigger bite out of the median LA area household’s income than it would out of Tom Cruise’s income. At the same time, a congestion charge would, if used in part to finance better public transit, be highly beneficial to the poor. Car commuting in LA County is surpsisingly rare relative to stereotype—just 72.3 percent of employed adults tell the Census that they get to work by driving alone in a car or van. About ten percent walk or use public transit, 11.6 percent carpool, 4.2 percent work from home, and 2.1 percent use “other” means. The over 20 percent of the population that’s relying on public transit and carpooling is going to be a very disproportionately low-income group. Wealthy and middle-class residents of a metro area like LA look at the paucity of good transit options and conclude that everyone must own a car. Poor people look at the high cost of car ownership and just need to learn to live with the paucity of good transit options. In general, it’s almost never the case that the public policy status quo has been arranged for the maximal benefit of the poor. If that’s your hypothesis about why we do things a certain way, it’s usually worth looking into the issue in more detail.
Now to get really detailed about the distributional impact of congestion pricing you would, of course, need more detailed information about the income of different types of commuters. Another thing you would need to know is more information about the costs of congestion. Some people work odd hours—late-night fast-food cashiers, convenience store people, bartenders, security guards, some hospital workers—and wouldn’t be dealing with peak-hour traffic or a peak-hour traffic charge. One thing to think about, though, is what kinds of people really really need to be at work on time. For a normal professional, this isn’t that big a deal. If you’re ten or fifteen minutes late to work every now and again, it’s not that big a deal. But for shift workers, who tend to be further down the economic totem pole, showing up late will get you fired—it’s hard to make up for it by just staying late or putting an hour in on Saturday from home. People like that would reap a disproportionately large benefit from the reduction in congestion associated with a congestion price.
The important thing to recall, though, is that unpriced roads is a genuinely inefficient policy. If done right, then half of commuters would be better off with the congestion charge (people who put an above-average premium on their time) even if we lit the money on fire or gave it to AIG. But we don’t need to light the money on fire, we can use it to finance increased services or reduced taxes or some other thing.
87 Responses to “Distributional Consequences of Congestion Pricing in Los Angeles”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 17th, 2009 at 9:07 am
According to this Brookings study, in 2003 72% of the working poor drove to work, and commuting costs are a very high percentage of their budgets. Any congestion tax will hit the working poor especially hard. A very regressive tax.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:08 am
“just 72.3 percent of employed adults tell the Census that they get to work by driving alone in a car or van”
Ponder that ‘just’. Nearly three-quarters of employees do something and we can accurately call it ’surprisingly rare’.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:08 am
The driver of all these problems is population growth. One way to manage that is through restriction of immigration (which should have been policy for 30 years). Until MY addresses that issue, all this talk about taxing the poor so that rich folks can have a nice day, is a waste of time.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:12 am
72% of the working poor drove to work… very regressive tax.
Hence, an entire post about providing benefits in a manner that 1) provide more options to that 72%, so they can lower their commuting costs and have more options and 2) makes the proposal progressive.
Srsly, you just restated Matt’s starting point – congestion pricing done by itself is regressive – which the spent the entire post describing how to address, as if it was a refutation.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Another morning and of course Matt is promoting yet another scheme for taking money from my pocket and passing it at a substantial loss through the guv’ment and then giving it to another group whom Matt favors over me.
Note chilluns that ever since Obama got in Matt is increasingly in favor of more and more regressive taxation schemes.
Why is that?
Because he can’t get enough money out of the rich so he has to come after the rest of us.
Matt why not just come clean?
You and your munchkins simply want to tell the rest of us just how much income is sufficient for our needs and then take all the rest to spend on your pointy headed schemes for our “improvement”.
And god knows if you put an “above average premium” on your time (as opposed to being a useless slacker eating cheetos in your pj’s in your grandma’s basement?) well you just gotta be punished for that bad attitude.
Only in the Union of Soviet Socialist Obama could Matt use a phrase like “put an above-average premium on their time”, suggest you be taxed for that, and not be taken out and shoved against a wall and mocked to death.
PS The really efficient way to do this Matt is to abandon weekends, go to a 10 day week, and then simply order all businesses and people to live/work/play in shifts.
Oh and where possible use the current Chinese model of dorm housing workers at their job sites.
Problem solved!
Talk about maximizing resource output!
March 17th, 2009 at 9:24 am
If done right, then half of commuters would be better off with the congestion charge
This might be true if you could actually measure the benefits and losses and set a proper tax. Some people under the congestion tax scheme may still drive but be worse off because their improved, less congested driving utility goes up by less than the tax. Good luck measuring that.
And who care about the poor? The only reason people on the right bring it up is because they think it will shut you up. The poor can easily be made better off with the tax revenue if that was your only concern. The real reason congestion pricing hasn’t taken off is because it harms the powerful middle class. It is rightly seen as an anti-car tax whose economic benefits are disingenuously purported by environmental and urban radicals.
showing up late will get you fired
This begs the question: do you have any idea what it is like to be a shift worker? Or more importantly a normal professional? Perhaps some old fashioned journalism is in order because you sound horribly out of touch.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:25 am
even if we lit the money on fire or gave it to AIG. But we don’t need to light the money on fire, we can use it to finance increased services or reduced taxes or some other thing.
However, apparently we do have to give to AIG.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:26 am
JT, do you ever have a point beyond “Wah, taxes!” ever?
You live in a society. Grow up.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:27 am
It is rightly seen as an anti-car tax
Drivers on congested roads ARE anti-car. It is hugely in their interest to have fewer cars on that road.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Instead of waving off the regressive nature of the taxes why not think of a plan to make the congestion fee more progressive?
You will need some way of charging the fee (i.e. EzPass like transponders or License Plate Cameras) to know who to send the bill. The assumption is you will know the make, model, and year of the car so combine that data with Kelly Blue Book to figure out how much the car is worth. Then charge different people different $ amounts based on the value of their car (and the congestion). Create something like a 10 level congestion system where each level is a different multiplier of their cars book value. People can then look up online or calculate how much their car would pay at each level. Have giant signs and webpages that inform people what congestion level it is and then they can decide if it is worth it to drive.
Tax congestion like other excise taxes – the more valuable the car the more they pay in congestion tax. So Tom Cruise’s Bentley that is worth $300K will leave him paying 100x congestion fee than my Corolla worth $3K.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Why doesn’t the government light money on fire. My understanding of monetary policy is that the government could in fact make arrangements in which large sums of money were burned for public amusement and it would have a very low actual cost.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:43 am
how nice it is that Matt is looking out for shift workers and LA’s poor
March 17th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Re the very first comment, by zyxw, the 72% figure has no significance if it’s national, or even if it’s “metropolitan areas in general.” I’d like to see a figure for the specific metropolitan areas, or even parts thereof, that are under consideration for congestion pricing. That’s the relevant figure.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:48 am
So long as the distances between homes and workplaces remain what they are, or until transit systems are a much denser service within communities (and neither of these changes can happen quickly), a congestion tax (which just monetizes the time cost that some drivers can budget into their day) primarily reduces real incomes and shifts more people into the “disproportionately low income” group that rides the rails or the buses or the trolleys. I expect middle income people who commute walk or drive to a suburban hub and catch a public service that drops them off near their workplace.
Focusing on the spokes of the current urban transportation maze is largely misleading; what matters are the hubs — where people are going to and from. Much of the driving/public transit choice is built from the convenience factor and the full travel time. For many commuters, the inconvenience and uncertainty of choosing existing public transit services swamps the irritation and cost of congestion. Saying that we’ll use the congestion tax proceeds to make things better is a promise that won’t be soon fulfilled, even with the best of plans and outcomes.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Are there any real objections to what Matt wrote, or all they all of the “If we ignore all of the progressive elements of the proposal and focus only on the regressive parts, it’s regressive,” variety?
March 17th, 2009 at 9:52 am
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-_caller=geoselect&-redoLog=false&-format=
is the table for the US
March 17th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Ah, didn’t see bdbd’s.
Yes, it would probably be best to provide the benefits up front, and phase in the tax only when there is a sufficiently robust transit infrastructure to provide real choice.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:54 am
“except for the stuff that matters for the affected people, it’s a great idea!”
good approach, joe!
March 17th, 2009 at 9:55 am
joe — thanks for acknowledgement, please excuse snark at 19
March 17th, 2009 at 10:00 am
No Lowell joe, I have no problems with reasonable and progressive taxation which yields similarly reasonable and progressive benefits to the greatest number of our citizens.
What I object to is taxation whose sole purpose is to punish behavior which is deemed politically incorrect.
It is as repulsive as the idea of a poll tax.
I think an equally fair question is why do progressives always see guv’ment programs, and greater taxation to support them, as the solution to any and every problem?
And further why do progressives always feel the need and right to act as nanny to their fellow adults?
What is the purpose of Matt’s congestion taxation?
Is it to make the driving experience better for us all?
It barely pretends to do that.
Its purpose is to tax and thereby punish private auto travel.
Its cost will be chiefly born by the middle classes.
And as g.gekko points out that is exactly why the idea has not taken off.
But rather than simply tell his victims why Matt wants to tax them he tries to invent a convoluted and disingenuous rationale for his social engineering schemes.
This is not about taxation it is about honesty.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:17 am
The Transportation Research Board (a division of the Nat’l Academies of Science) recently released, through the Transit Cooperative Research Program, a survey report on funding mechanisms in use for public transit systems around the country, in case anyone is interested in the actual nuts and bolts of this stuff. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_129.pdf
March 17th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Matt, the reason people don’t believe you is that these are essentially the same arguments that were made by “liberals” in favor of globalization. “Sure, the first-order effects will be regressive, but it will increase overall prosperity, and the regressivity can be offset by taxation and redistribution.” The problem is that this never happened. And it won’t happen in this case either. Just as with the increase in regressive Social Security taxes in 1983, all of the money will be redistributed to the wealthy via tax cuts.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:38 am
When conservatives can’t argue against an idea – for example, that polluting is bad – they instead characterize it with the term “politically incorrect.”
Here, let’s rewrite JT’s statement using accurate terminology that identifies the issue instead of labeling it “politically incorrect.”
What I object to is taxation whose sole purpose is to punish behavior which is found to promote broad harm to the public.”
Other characterizations they use in place of addressing the merits of an argument: racist, nanny. Oh, look.
There’s one actual argument in here: Its purpose is to tax and thereby punish private auto travel. I want to drive, and YOU get to pay for it, not me.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Are there any real objections to what Matt wrote…?
Yes. It is not politically possible. Burdening the poor has never been a major impediment to passing public policy but burdening the middle class has. And even if this policy improves overall welfare, it is not structured in a way to make it desirable to voters. Even the middle class voters who benefit eventually, could oppose it because of the ambiguity over whether they will benefit. That and the perception a congestion tax has ulterior motives (i.e. why does Matt care so much he doesn’t drive) makes it nearly impossible to pass. Unless you address some of these problems congestion tax will like many great economic ideas remain unimplemented or underimplemented.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:48 am
until transit systems are a much denser service within communities (and neither of these changes can happen quickly)
Well, can’t we fairly quickly increase the density of bus service? Buy more buses, hire more drivers, run them more often; adding new bus stops may require some extra investment in shelters and the like but it doesn’t seem that prohibitive to me. Especially if the congestion tax is funneled into a dedicated mass-transit fund by the same regional authority that imposed the tax, which would be the best way to do it if you were going to do it.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:48 am
gordon,
Consider an area that already has robust public transit, and in which both the transit and road systems are at or above capacity. NYC, for example.
The proposal to upgrade transit – more and better SUPERTRAINS and even SUPERBUSES – to be funded by a congestion fee seems politically viable.
In such a situation, the middle class would not be burdened, they’d be greatly benefited.
Unless you address some of these problems… Agreed, but the dedicated funding idea is precisely an attempt to address those problems, both substantively and politically.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:51 am
One class component that isn’t taken into account is that many of the people who drive the furthest are some of the poorest, ie people who drive into work in Los Angeles County from outside the county – a good deal of the SoCal working class has been displaced inland over the last 40 years to Riverside, Ontario, and San Bernardino Counties as land prices increased in LA, Orange, and Ventura counties (60-100 mile one-way commutes-think New Jersey to LA’s Manhattan). These are people who increased public transit isn’t going to help no matter how extensively it is improved, and whose livelihoods are going to take a beating with no compensatory improvement in quality of life in the event of a congestion tax.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Are there any real objections to what Matt wrote, or all they all of the “If we ignore all of the progressive elements of the proposal and focus only on the regressive parts, it’s regressive,” variety?
This isn’t a particularly good defense of the proposal, because the two components (congestion pricing and public transit) can clearly be separated, with each considered on its own merits. If I propose to fund cancer research via mandatory blood plasma donations from the poor, it’s *entirely reasonable* to note that cancer research is great, but other methods for funding it should be secured.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Are there any real objections to what Matt wrote, or all they all of the “If we ignore all of the progressive elements of the proposal and focus only on the regressive parts, it’s regressive,” variety?
This isn’t a particularly good defense of the proposal, because the two components (congestion pricing and public transit) can clearly be separated, with each considered on its own merits. If I propose to fund cancer research via mandatory blood plasma donations from the poor, it’s *entirely reasonable* to note that cancer research is great, but other methods for funding it should be secured.
P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!
March 17th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Well that is quite strange; someone has pretended to be me and reposted my last post, adding a little kudos at the end.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Ah, I see from the link that it’s a clever form of spam.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Sure, bbartlog. Whatever.
Hey, joe from Lowell, your point was superawesome!
March 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Half of people placing an above-average value premium on their time implies that the time-premium distribution is symmetric, which I highly doubt to be the case.
Not terribly important, but some Andrew Gelman would not be impressed.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
But seriously, the two issues could be separated, but why need they be? They’re not just two issues stuck together arbitrarily. Expanding transit service reduced traffic congestion; congestion pricing reduced traffic congestion. Congestion pricing can have an unintended regressive effect; expanding transit service can address this problem.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
If you’re ten or fifteen minutes late to work every now and again, it’s not that big a deal. But for shift workers, who tend to be further down the economic totem pole, showing up late will get you fired—it’s hard to make up for it by just staying late or putting an hour in on Saturday from home. People like that would reap a disproportionately large benefit from the reduction in congestion associated with a congestion price.
No, workers lower down the economic totem pole would incur the greatest burden from congestion charging. They would lose the greatest share of their income, and would be the ones most likely to switch to public transportation.
That doesn’t mean congestion charging would be bad policy in LA county, just that it’s not the panacea you routinely portray it to be.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Consider an area that already has robust public transit, and in which both the transit and road systems are at or above capacity. NYC, for example. The proposal to upgrade transit – more and better SUPERTRAINS and even SUPERBUSES – to be funded by a congestion fee seems politically viable.
Er, New York’s transit system is in an economic catastrophe. They can’t even find a politically viable way to fund the transit they have now, let alone upgrade it.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
And you’re just as likely to have the 10 or 15 minutes late outcome from time to time with public transit, unless you start earlier than necessary, so that “10 or 15 minutes late” equals “about on time” and you’re usually arriving at work early, time you would have rather have spent snuggled with the Mrs or having a quick breakfast with the kids.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
One thing you’re all missing is that the “congestion pricing” in the L.A. freeways won’t actually impact rush hour. In their total fear of upsetting car driving commuters who use the current HOV lanes that would be converted, the “congestion pricing” plan won’t be in effect during rush hour. So, those people who work set shifts won’t be seeing any benefit to driving at rush hour.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Er, New York’s transit system is in an economic catastrophe. They can’t even find a politically viable way to fund the transit they have now, let alone upgrade it.
Catastrophe is a bit hyperbolic. Local government finances are tight everywhere right now, and for every kind of service, not just transit. That’s not an argument against the political viability of transit any more than it is one against schools or firefighters or building inspectors. Least of all in NYC.
Besides that, congestion pricing came very close to getting through in NYC last year. It was defeated, but not so resoundingly that you can safely declare it politically impossible. Arguably, it might even have passed fairly easily with somewhat smarter political handling on Bloomberg’s part, and/or a little more community activism to counter the lies and hypocrisy of a few automobile friendly council members – some of whom were working against the interests of their constituents.
(It wouldn’t exactly have been a bottomless supply of transit funding, of course, but it would have helped.)
March 17th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
No, workers lower down the economic totem pole would incur the greatest burden from congestion charging. They would lose the greatest share of their income, and would be the ones most likely to switch to public transportation.
This doesn’t actually address the argument. There are two sources of lost income here: the uncertainties and delays caused by congestion, or the congestion fee. Congestion pricing increases the latter, but reduces the former. You have to look at both to decide whether someone is better or worse off. And the relative magnitudes of those costs might be different at different income levels or for people with different employment situations.
It’s entirely possible that the greater reliability and speed of a less congested road will be boon enough to a low-income worker that it’s worth the fee. (Likewise, that reliability might be rather less valuable to an upper middle class professional who can afford to be +/- 20 minutes early or late to work.)
March 17th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
jack lecou, a lot depends on how close the public transit terminus is from the workplace, for all collar colors
March 17th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
The untold story here is that traffic has improved significantly in LA over the last 6 months, as just removing a few additional cars from the road has a major impact. That’s not sustainable, obviously, because it’s built on a faltering economy, but it does prove the potential effectiveness of transit, particularly subway, solutions.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
and dday provides the lead in for one of the great Onion stories:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_98_percent_of_u_s_commuters
March 17th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
That’s a bit ‘if’ there, Matt. You can’t assume a policy will be implemented in the precise way you want. If anything, you should assume it won’t be. That’s how the process of legislative compromise works.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
jack lecou, a lot depends on how close the public transit terminus is from the workplace, for all collar colors
True, although I don’t think this has much to do with what what I was saying.
Even with no transit at all, the point is that adoption of a congestion fee results in not just costs, but also benefits: the reduced congestion.
I’m not arguing that it’s not broadly regressive, but even so it could still be that the reduced congestion results in a net benefit at all (or almost all) income levels (i.e., it’s regressive only in the sense that upper percentiles get relatively MORE benefit, not that anybody really loses).
And that’s WITHOUT considering the harm-reduction escape valve offered by public transit. (Also, keep in mind that congestion reduction offers a lot of benefit to bus travelers too.)
That’s not all necessarily true, of course, but you have to actually run the numbers somehow – you can’t just ignore the benefits and argue only with the costs, as ‘charles’ was doing.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Catastrophe is a bit hyperbolic. Local government finances are tight everywhere right now, and for every kind of service, not just transit. That’s not an argument against the political viability of transit
The claim referred specifically to expanding transit in New York City. Given the catastrophic condition of transit finances in NYC, expansion isn’t remotely politically viable. More generally, I see no evidence that congestion pricing is a politically viable way of funding transit expansion. Do you have any?
This doesn’t actually address the argument.
Yes it does.
There are two sources of lost income here: the uncertainties and delays caused by congestion, or the congestion fee. Congestion pricing increases the latter, but reduces the former.
Congestion pricing may reduce the former for those who continue to drive. Former drivers displaced to mass transit by the congestion fee may experience longer travel times and/or greater uncertainties than they did when driving.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Congestion pricing may reduce the former for those who continue to drive. Former drivers displaced to mass transit by the congestion fee may experience longer travel times and/or greater uncertainties than they did when driving.
Except when they don’t.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
and dday provides the lead in for one of the great Onion stories:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_98_percent_of_u_s_commuters
The irony is that I think this actually does help to explain why voters support hugely expensive boondoggle mass transit projects like urban light rail. Not because they intend to use the transit themselves, but because they hope other people will use it and reduce road congestion so that they can keep driving and get where they’re going faster. The problem is that the number of people who actually do switch to transit is so small it makes virtually no difference to congestion.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Matt is working very hard to come up with statistics that make this sound less regressive–the half that put more than an average premium on their time? These are bizarre platitudes and not real statistics. If you could come up with real numbers showing that congestion pricing would help the poor, or even that congestion pricing would be used to benefit mass transit, I’d be all ears. But you haven’t even come close to that here.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
The claim referred specifically to expanding transit in New York City. Given the catastrophic condition of transit finances in NYC, expansion isn’t remotely politically viable. More generally, I see no evidence that congestion pricing is a politically viable way of funding transit expansion. Do you have any?
This statement just ignores everything I said. It’s impossible to have a discussion with someone who only pays attention or understands every fifth or sixth sentence.
To recap:
1. NYC’s transit problems are not political, they’re financial, part of a general downturn (although in some ways NYCs finances are particularly hard hit). Also, while taxes are never popular or politically easy, that affects all services. Transit itself IS quite popular.
2. The last bid for congestion pricing in Manhattan lost, but only barely. That means a slightly different approach or a slightly different mood might succeed sometime in the near future. I.e., it’s viable.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Also: one of the most popular arguments for congestion pricing in NYC revolved around the promise to use that money to fund transit improvement and/or keep fares down.
I’d take that as pretty good evidence that congestion pricing could be a politically viable way of funding transit expansion.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Well it’s an empirical question how much traffic speed you get for what toll, and whether a majority of the population thinks it’s worth it. Maybe $5 buys commuters an hour less driving and they’re happy, or maybe $10 buys them 20 minutes and everyone feels cheated. The answer in London was that a 5 pound toll increased average traffic speed from 8 mph to 11 mph and the population is generally supportive.
Then again, only about 10% of London commuters drive cars, down from 12% before the tolls. So no wonder the tolls are popular; somwhere around 90% of the commuters got a faster trip for nothing! It’s difficult to see how that would work in Los Angeles.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
In SoCal, the rich tend to live near their jobs, while the working class live way out in the boonies.
Generally speaking, a lack of understanding of Southern California is endemic among East Coast pundits.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
The problem is that the number of people who actually do switch to transit is so small it makes virtually no difference to congestion.
Chuckie: unfamiliar with traffic engineering, concept of tipping points.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I work for a university, and I talk with the staff here. The economic situation in the area is such that very large proportion of the staff commutes long distance. Almost all seem to carpool, some in pairs, some in vans for a larger number. Between the cost of parking, cost of gas and the fact that many thousands go to very similar destination, even those who work at evening/nights can get some form of carpooling.
Thus those lower on the “economic totem pole” seem to be much more willing to carpool than the upper middle class. This offer a simple scheme to make congestion pricing less painful to the working class: progressive discount for high occupancy vehicles. One could add policies and measures to encourage carpools (and van services) to and from ride-and-park lots, thus making mass transit more practical.
If such scheme would decrease congestion and commuting time, working poor could benefit a lot. For them, time is also worth some money, either by increasing the ability to do extra work for cash (odd jobs, extra part time jobs) or extra work to substitute for purchases (cooking, repairs etc.) If you work 8 hours and commute 2 hours each way, and this is reduced to 1 hour each way, the extra 2 hours would be a huge benefit.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
jack lecou, a lot depends on how close the public transit terminus is from the workplace, for all collar colors
True, although I don’t think this has much to do with what what I was saying.
Even with no transit at all, the point is that adoption of a congestion fee results in not just costs, but also benefits: the reduced congestion.
This is sophistry. If there is no meaningful alternative (perhaps carpooling, coordinated collective rejiggering of schedules or long hikes count) to driving, the benefits will be modest at best. As a practical matter, I doubt that there are any localities where a congestion fee has any relevance and there is no public transit alternative.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
In SoCal, the rich tend to live near their jobs, while the working class live way out in the boonies.
Generally speaking, a lack of understanding of Southern California is endemic among East Coast pundits.
Matt said those in the median would be hit the most. And he’s got it about right, L.A. is surrounded by upper middle class communities to the north and west that congest the freeway system, especially the bottleneck that is the 405. The working class people who don’t live in the city (and plenty do, have you been there?) mostly live to the east in the Inland Empire. Because of this, I don’t really know if congestion charging would actually relieve congestion – the upper middle class would continue to drive anyway because mass transit is inadequate and because they love their cars. But it sure would raise a lot of money!
Another problem: where would the congestion zone be? You can’t just congestion price the entire freeway system, but limiting it to L.A.’s “core” (defining that would be another set of problems, since the L.A. area is so distributed) would only do so much, as a good chunk of traffic is along the freeways that radiate outward (and I’m sure that’s true of most major metro areas).
March 17th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
This is sophistry. If there is no meaningful alternative (perhaps carpooling, coordinated collective rejiggering of schedules or long hikes count) to driving, the benefits will be modest at best.
Huh? Maybe I’m genuinely not understanding you here, so we might be talking past each other:
- If the benefits are “modest at best” then there’s little point in implementing a congestion fee, in the first place, right? But the idea is to reduce or eliminate congestion externalities (which are HUGE) for the remaining drivers,
- …and that’s most of them: the tipping point effect means you really don’t need very large reductions in the number of vehicles. A few percent will do it. The reductions can come from a variety of sources – carpooling, transit, people who didn’t really need to be on the road at peak times after all, etc.
Again, although who actually benefits and how much is obviously an empirical matter, this can produce net benefits for almost everyone: poor people, people who elect to switch to carpools or buses – both of which are now faster and more reliable, people who don’t elect to change their habits but share the road with people who do.
As a practical matter, I doubt that there are any localities where a congestion fee has any relevance and there is no public transit alternative.
And I really don’t understand this.
Your point is apparently about the quality and availability of public transit – the degree to which it is a viable alternative to someone depends on how close their personal endpointsare to transit routes and stops (and service times!).
So it’s not that there are no localities without public transit alternatives, it’s that there are different degrees of public transit alternatives, both between localities and for different people within a given locality.
In general, transit is complementary to congestion pricing, and the “better” the transit system is in a place, the higher the net benefits of congestion pricing will be there (because people will have more choices with which to work). But it otherwise has nothing to do with congestion pricing. People can benefit from congestion pricing even with little or no public transit alternative that’s useful to them.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
NYC’s transit problems are not political, they’re financial,
This claim makes no sense at all. Since most of NYC’s transit funding is public funding, the funding problems are most definitely political. NYC doesn’t even have enough money to keep its existing transit system going, let alone to expand it.
2. The last bid for congestion pricing in Manhattan lost, but only barely. That means a slightly different approach or a slightly different mood might succeed sometime in the near future. I.e., it’s viable.
You need to read more carefully. The claim was that congestion pricing is viable way of expanding transit in NYC (”better SUPERTRAINS and even SUPERBUSES”). You haven’t produced any evidence that congestion pricing is even a viable way of funding NYC’s existing transit system, let alone expanding it. It’s not just a matter of imposing some kind of congestion pricing. The revenue would need to large enough and stable enough to pay for the required spending.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
This claim makes no sense at all. Since most of NYC’s transit funding is public funding, the funding problems are most definitely political. NYC doesn’t even have enough money to keep its existing transit system going, let alone to expand it.
Let me see if I can break this down slowly enough that you can follow along:
Your claim is: “Given the catastrophic condition of transit finances in NYC, expansion isn’t remotely politically viable.”
But this statement is trivially true of a whole host of city services:
…”Given the catastrophic state of street sweeping finances in NYC, expansion isn’t remotely politically viable,”
…”Given the catastrophic state of city run day care finances in NYC, expansion isn’t remotely viable,”
…etc.
So it turns out you haven’t made an argument about the political viability of transit expansion in particular, you’ve just made a vapid statement that’s also true of NYC’s finances in general (which are obviously not so good at the moment).
And when you look more closely, transit is actually pretty popular in NYC. If the mayor were to somehow find an extra $5 billion in city funds in his couch cushions or something, restoration and expansion of transit services would probably be near the top of the list of things to do with it. Once the economy (and NYC’s tax base) begin to recover, it still will be.
It’s a financial problem, not a political one.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
You need to read more carefully. The claim was that congestion pricing is viable way of expanding transit in NYC (”better SUPERTRAINS and even SUPERBUSES”). You haven’t produced any evidence that congestion pricing is even a viable way of funding NYC’s existing transit system, let alone expanding it. It’s not just a matter of imposing some kind of congestion pricing. The revenue would need to large enough and stable enough to pay for the required spending.
The original statement was about political viability as well:
The proposal to upgrade transit – more and better SUPERTRAINS and even SUPERBUSES – to be funded by a congestion fee seems politically viable.
In the context of NYC, “SUPERTRAINS” and “SUPERBUSES” is clearly not meant to be taken literally. I took it to mean improvements in transit service of whatever type.
And there’s little question that the revenue from congestion pricing would be fairly stable, and reasonably substantial. Probably not enough to “fund NYC’s existing transit system,” but that’s your strawman. The last proposal was widely reported to be enough to fund either service expansions (e.g., more trains, buses), or to hold down fares.
Since that part of the proposal was actually quite popular (indeed, it’s possible the plan failed largely because the mayor couldn’t or wouldn’t make a credible promise that the money would actually be used that way), I take that as a pretty good sign of the general political viability of the idea.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
But this statement is trivially true of a whole host of city services
Yes, of course it’s true for other city services. It’s not “trivially” true for any of them. Transit funding will always be a huge political issue as long as transit relies so heavily on taxes.
So it turns out you haven’t made an argument about the political viability of transit expansion in particular,
Yes, I have. NYC’s transit finances are in a catastrophic condition. There isn’t even enough money to keep existing services going, let alone expand them.
And there’s little question that the revenue from congestion pricing would be fairly stable, and reasonably substantial.
How do you know?
March 17th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Chuckie: unfamiliar with traffic engineering, concept of tipping points.
I said: “The problem is that the number of people who actually do switch to transit is so small it makes virtually no difference to congestion.”
If you seriously think you can show that urban light rail systems have significantly reduced congestion, whether through “tipping points” or in any other way, then do so.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
“People who put an above-average [monetary] premium on their time” is almost entirely analogous with “people who have an above average amount of money”
March 17th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Matt said those in the median would be hit the most. And he’s got it about right, L.A. is surrounded by upper middle class communities to the north and west that congest the freeway system, especially the bottleneck that is the 405.
What the hell are you talking about?
It’s hard to talk about a “West” of Los Angeles; it goes all the way to the Pacific – that’s where the Palisades, the Airport, and Venice are. The 405 congestion starts in the Sepulveda pass, which is a good 4 miles to the South of the start of Los Angeles. That’s Los Angeles, baby.
Here’s three things about congestion pricing in Los Angeles:
1. It’ll require Federal legislation, because a good 20-40% is generated from port traffic on the freeways.
2. Some unsolvable land-use issues drive it. You can thank Santa Monica for some of that (for some reason, the People’s Paradise thought they needed to create 20,000 low-income jobs without any housing for 30 miles).
3. Only east coast bloggers would think busses are a good solution for a 40 mile commute.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Yes, of course it’s true for other city services. It’s not “trivially” true for any of them. Transit funding will always be a huge political issue as long as transit relies so heavily on taxes.
Yes, it is trivially true: City finances are in the toilet, thus city does not have money to spend improving X, where X is pretty much whatever service you care to name, no matter how “politically viable” it might if there were some money to spend.
Yes, I have. NYC’s transit finances are in a catastrophic condition. There isn’t even enough money to keep existing services going, let alone expand them.
Again, inserting “transit” for X above does not mean you’re making an argument about transit. You’re just using transit as an example of a more general fiscal problem.
To make an argument about the political viability of transit, you’d have to actually discuss ways in which transit might be politically different from other comparable city services.
You haven’t.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
“And there’s little question that the revenue from congestion pricing would be fairly stable, and reasonably substantial.”
How do you know?
What? Have you seen any credible questions about this? Feel free to point them out.
Somehow I doubt the establishment of a well known fee is going to introduce some extraordinary new volatility into the monthly or yearly traffic volume in Manhattan. Once the adjustment to the fee has been made, traffic volume – and revenue – will be as steady as ever.
As for the quantity of revenue, as I said, my impression from the debate on Bloomberg’s proposal was that it would be sufficient to make substantial improvements in transit service, or even be enough to eliminate transit fare entirely.
The thing was up for federal funding, so I’m sure there’re some widely accepted numbers available. Feel free to look them up and prove me wrong if you like.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
What the hell are you talking about?
Presumably, from the context, by “Los Angeles” he means “central Los Angeles.”
Anyway, transportation issues like this would be governed not by the City of L.A., but by the L.A. County MTA. Within the MTA’s jurisdiction, there is a lot of decentralization, but one can roughly characterize a commuting center that stretches from Downtown to the Westside and down to El Segundo, but there is not a clearly-defined “inbound” and “outbound” until you get out to the northern San Fernando Valley or, E-W wise, into the San Gabriel Valley. Orange County is problematic because despite its reputation as a bedroom community, commutes along the 5 and 405 between LA and OC are close to balanced — awful in both directions.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
To make an argument about the political viability of transit, you’d have to actually discuss ways in which transit might be politically different from other comparable city services.
Incidentally, when you actually do this, your case starts to look a lot worse.
For example, restoring the service cuts and patching up MTA is a topic of urgent debate in Albany. Indeed, one of the leading proposals, the one apparently supported by the governor, involves putting new tolls on Manhattan bridges to finance transit. That’s an awful lot like a sort of coarse-grained congestion fee.
Now, there’s still opposition, of course, and it’s not a sure thing. But this is hardly what it looks like when an issue is politically unviable.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Yes, it is trivially true.
No, it’s not “trivially” true. NYC’s transit finances are in a catastrophic condition. There isn’t even enough money to keep existing services going, let alone expand them.
What?
What do you mean “what?” I asked you how you know that “there’s little question that the revenue from congestion pricing would be fairly stable, and reasonably substantial.” Do you seriously not understand the question?
Somehow I doubt the establishment of a well known fee is going to introduce some extraordinary new volatility into the monthly or yearly traffic volume in Manhattan.
Do you? Now answer the question: How do you know that “there’s little question that the revenue from congestion pricing would be fairly stable, and reasonably substantial?”
As for the quantity of revenue, as I said, my impression from the debate on Bloomberg’s proposal …
Ah, your “impression.” I don’t care about your “impression.” Show us your e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. You haven’t even produced any evidence that congestion pricing would be a viable way of funding NYC’s existing transit services, let alone expanding them.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
NYC’s transit finances are in a catastrophic condition. There isn’t even enough money to keep existing services going, let alone expand them.
Yes. NYC’s transit finances being in poor condition is an obvious and trivial result of NYC’s finances being in poor condition. It’s a statement that has nothing to do with the political viability of transit, or of teachers, or sanitation, or any of the hundreds of other things you could put in for X in my post above.
For example, I imagine the city has also pared back street repairs and improvements to the bare essentials. Would you believe me if I told you that the sorry condition of the city’s street repair budget was proof that the issue of fixing potholes was now a political loser?
March 17th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
What do you mean “what?” I asked you how you know that “there’s little question that the revenue from congestion pricing would be fairly stable, and reasonably substantial.” Do you seriously not understand the question?
Mixner, anyone with a passing grasp of conversational English would understand my “what?” there as an expression of incredulity, not confusion.
This is pretty basic stuff. Stop playing dumb.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Do you? Now answer the question: How do you know that “there’s little question that the revenue from congestion pricing would be fairly stable, and reasonably substantial?”
What possible reason could you have for thinking a congestion fee (which is well known and stable) would introduce wild swings in aggregate traffic volume? Do bridge tolls do this?
Stop throwing up silly smoke screens.
As for revenue level, I told you the basis of my thinking. Feel free to look up the numbers if you think I’m wrong.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Ah, your “impression.” I don’t care about your “impression.” Show us your e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. You haven’t even produced any evidence that congestion pricing would be a viable way of funding NYC’s existing transit services, let alone expanding them.
I haven’t SAID they would be a way of funding existing transit services. Nor has anyone else. Drop the strawman.
Since congestion fees would provide SOME revenue on top of MTA’s existing funding sources, it logically implies that it could finance SOME expansion of service beyond that baseline. (Or alternatively, finance SOME reduction of fares below what they would otherwise have to be.)
Now, how much exactly is, as they say, an empirical matter. Look it up if you’re so curious.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Ah, your “impression.” I don’t care about your “impression.” Show us your e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.
This, incidentally, is a pretty ironic request coming from a guy whose closest brush with “evidence” in this thread was the vapid statement that NYC’s budget is a bit tight right now.
I’m not your research assistant, Mixner old boy. Do your own googling.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Yes. NYC’s transit finances being in poor condition is an obvious and trivial result of NYC’s finances being in poor condition. It’s a statement that has nothing to do with the political viability of transit,
The claim was that congestion pricing is a politically viable way of funding transit expansion in NYC. Do you have any evidence to support this or don’t you? NYC’s transit finances are a catastrophe. They don’t even have enough money to fund their existing services, let alone an expansion.
What possible reason could you have for thinking a congestion fee (which is well known and stable) would introduce wild swings in aggregate traffic volume?
Nonresponsive. The question is: How do you know that “there’s little question that the revenue from congestion pricing would be fairly stable, and reasonably substantial?” Do you have an answer or don’t you? No, I didn’t think so.
Since congestion fees would provide SOME revenue on top of MTA’s existing funding sources, it logically implies that it could finance SOME expansion of service beyond that baseline.
Since MTA doesn’t even have enough revenue to fund its existing services, any revenues from congestion fees could be consumed simply in funding those existing services. You have no basis for claiming that congestion fees would provide enough revenue to expand service. You haven’t even shown that congestion fees are politically viable in NYC at all.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I’m not your research assistant,
I’m not expecting you to be. I’m asking you to back up your own claims with evidence. Do you have evidence, or don’t you?
March 17th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
The claim was that congestion pricing is a politically viable way of funding transit expansion in NYC. Do you have any evidence to support this or don’t you? NYC’s transit finances are a catastrophe. They don’t even have enough money to fund their existing services, let alone an expansion.
Okay, let’s step back a little bit. Here, as near as I can tell, is your logic:
Now, I’ll stipulate to step 1. But what can you possibly have in mind for step 2?
The only thing that seems to fit is that 2 is something about NYC transit being unpopular: a political loser somehow. But step 1 certainly doesn’t imply that, anymore than it implies that schools or fixing potholes is unpopular.
In fact, transit is quite popular with New Yorkers. Indeed, the logic for passing congestion pricing – which has at best lukewarm public support – hinges around linking the revenue from it to transit, which is far more popular.
You could make a case that this wouldn’t quite be enough, but that has nothing to do with NYC’s transit finances being in poor shape, which you seem to think is important.
So what’s step 2?
March 17th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
I’m not expecting you to be. I’m asking you to back up your own claims with evidence. Do you have evidence, or don’t you?
You posted first, so I think it’s fair for you to go first.
Let’s start with your claim that congestion pricing in aid of NYC transit is not politically viable.
Hell, forget evidence. I’ll settle for a halfway coherent argument.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Nonresponsive. The question is: How do you know that “there’s little question that the revenue from congestion pricing would be fairly stable, and reasonably substantial?” Do you have an answer or don’t you? No, I didn’t think so.
“Nonresponsive”. Awesome.
Honestly, try Mixner.
If this isn’t a lame smokescreen, and you really do have worries about how a simple road use fee will somehow produce wild month-to-month swings in traffic volume, I suggest you look into that.
While you’re at it, you can check to make sure it won’t cause the Statue of Liberty to fall over, or produce tsunamis in the Indian Ocean.
As to whether the revenue would be enough to buy new MTA rocket ships or not, that’s your own special irrelevant strawman.
Service improvements are service improvements: If Q is the best level of service that could be provided without congestion revenue, and P is the extra service you could buy with congestion revenue, then you can sell congestion pricing on the basis of providing improved service level Q+P.
My recollection is that the revenue from congestion pricing was something like several hundred million a year. That’s substantial, even if it won’t buy a lot of rocket ships. (And it’s better than nothing, even if it doesn’t close MTA’s current shortfalls all the way.)
March 18th, 2009 at 3:15 am
What the hell are you talking about?
It’s hard to talk about a “West” of Los Angeles; it goes all the way to the Pacific – that’s where the Palisades, the Airport, and Venice are. The 405 congestion starts in the Sepulveda pass, which is a good 4 miles to the South of the start of Los Angeles. That’s Los Angeles, baby.
Sorry, I’m from the Valley and I’ve always thought of Ventura county as west of L.A. Didn’t mean to confuse anyone. A ton of people commute from there, and the 101 slows to a crawl a couple miles before it meets the 405. Of course, getting into anywhere from Santa Monica to downtown on a weekday is hell.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I read a post similar to this a few weeks ago, but I think this makes more sense
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:22 am
Buy Viagra…
http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra…
March 24th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Buy Propecia…
http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia…
March 24th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Buy Propecia Online…
http://url.edna.edu.au/eVAJ Buy Propecia Online…
April 12th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Hello very nice site! sitemap