Rising Gas Prices, Sinking Economy Reducing Congestion
Traffic jam in LA (cc photo by the infamous gdub)
The Texas Transportation Institute’s latest data, which is from 2007, indicates that traffic congestion went down slightly mostly due to higher gas prices: “The differences are small, but they represent a rare break in near-constant growth in traffic over 25 years.” The thinking is that continued high prices and deteriorating economic conditions should keep congestion on the decline.
The moral of the story is that behavior really does respond to the situation. It’s possible, in other words, to make traffic congestion less bad. But this is just about the worst possible way to actually do it. If, instead, we directly charged people fees to enter congested areas at peak times, we would not only put a much bigger dent in the congestion problem but we’d do it in a way that raised substantial sums of money that could be used to fund improvements in transportation alternatives. That would give drivers uncrowded roads, give non-drivers better commutes, and give everyone a bigger set of options.
13 Responses to “Rising Gas Prices, Sinking Economy Reducing Congestion”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“give non-drivers better commutes”
How so? I presume that all the drivers who get out of cars are getting on to public transit. that’s the idea, right? So at least in the short term, people who already use public transit will see more crowding, longer lines, etc.
I guess you can argue that in the long run, all that money from the congestion tax will go towards transit. But what are the odds of that? If you think it’s high, I suggest you take a look at what happened to the tobacco settlement money.
Moreover, it seems really strained to suggest that taxing drivers is a really great way to help… drivers. Do a thought experiment. Let’s say that we do some research and put a hefty tax on “Anything Matt Yglesias Likes or Needs to Do.” Presumably, this will result in fewer people doing the thing MY likes or needs to do. Meaning shorter lines and less congestion wherever he goes. Bathrooms at NBA games? A $5 door tax. Imagine the shorter lines! Imagine MY rejoicing! A $15 tax on tickets to alternative music shows! Etc. A huge, $10,000 a year tax on downtown condos! Imagine how easy it would be to get your pick of them.
One wonders of this would really be a way to help Matt Yglesias. If this really were a great help to any group, one might expect groups to be lobbying congress to tax things they like to do. But I don’t see a lot of that happening.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I hate these types of congestion fees. To a rich person a few dollars to breeze through a freeway in their BMW is nothing. To a middle class worker things like this can add up to serious money. Taken to the logical conclusion why not herd all blue collar workers into some smelly cattle cars so the robber barons can get from the trading floor to the golf course even faster?
July 8th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
The thing you don’t consider is this: if a company has an office in the city, and suddenly the cost to their employees rises to get there – why wouldn’t they just pull the office out to the suburbs?
That’s been happening for 50 years without congestion pricing.
You need to consider the full weight of local taxation in the cities you target with this rather than just think of it as a good idea on its own.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
James Robertson says: The thing you don’t consider is this: if a company has an office in the city, and suddenly the cost to their employees rises to get there – why wouldn’t they just pull the office out to the suburbs?
Your assuming that the employees are all commuting from the same suburban area into the central city. In many cases, current employees may live across a broad area of suburban/in-city area and the commute into the “city” is often the most direct. Choosing to move to a suburb may cause even more congestion/pollution as even more workers will be forced to drive the longer suburb-suburb commute versus using public transportation.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Correction – You’re, not Your
July 8th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
There’s another comparison one could draw here — for those at the margin whose behavior gets so conveniently changed, adding a congestion fee is just like (has the same impact as) suffering a loss of income or loss of employment. No wonder so many people I see riding the bus seem so sullen.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I am sure that gas prices affect traffic. But i do not think it’s the main factor.I could be wrong , but my guess is that traffic congestion is lessening for the sad but simple reason that less people are working due to unemployment.
As for a “congestion fee” , i know that the financial district of London has one . I am curious as to whether anyone else has one.
You can compare the financial district of London to Manhatten.And a “congestion fee” may in fact work in Manhatten. But I do not think that you could compare downtown London to downtown Cleveland or any other American downtown..
I question wether it could work in most American cities.Many American cities are begging people to work and live downtown.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Actually, I’m not assuming that people are all coming from one suburban area to an office park somewhere. Here in the DC/baltimore area, there are people driving from all over to all points around the DC beltway, for instance.
People seem to be more than willing to drive more in order to park for free than to drive less and pay to park. This has to do with the immediacy of the pricing, I’m sure – so if you had congestion pricing work like the EZPass system works, you might get fewer complaints. On the other hand, cities still need to compete with the reality of lower tax jurisdictions. Adding one more thing to the pile of costs may not get you where you want to go.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I think that it should be pointed out that the definition of “downtown” is changing in some cities.In Baltimore the city apparently has given up on revitalising the [extremly rundown] Howard Street corridor, which has always been Baltimore’s “downtown” , .
Instead they have developed the new area called ” Inner Harbor East” .And they are trying to develop a shopping district in Curtis Bay.
I don’t know if this is the trend elsewhere .But I do think that it will be in the future.I think that it has more to do with trying to build new shopping areas instead of trying to improve traffic.
But while transportation isn’t the main factor. I am sure that it will affect traffic patterns. And maybe cut down on congestion.
July 8th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Re: Choosing to move to a suburb may cause even more congestion/pollution as even more workers will be forced to drive the longer suburb-suburb commute versus using public transportation.
Which (I think) was the point of the post. Congestion pricing to clean up downtowns could just have the effect of moving the congestion somewhere else, and maybe even making it worse overall.
Re: But I do not think that you could compare downtown London to downtown Cleveland or any other American downtown..
A comparison to DC would work too. Maybe Toronto and Montreal if we allow the larger meaning of “American”. But no where else. Even Chicago would be a stretch.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
You know, I lived in and commuted in L.A. for a couple decades, and I have to say that photo actually looks like light congestion for an evening commute.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Here is a thought experiment. Say you are desperately poor, but you get a promising job interview. You have two choices, pay a congestion fee and your trip to the interview is 1/2 hour; or do not pay and your trip to the job interview is 2 hours.
What do you do?
July 10th, 2009 at 5:36 am
[...] on the report to argue for changes in the way we fund and invest in transportation. Matt Yglesias said if “we directly charged people fees to enter congested areas at peak times, we would not only [...]