Comments on: Another Free-Market Argument for Congestion Pricing

By: geoffludt

geoffludt — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:02:59 +0000

Though your post is a bit dated, I thought I’d supply a relevant link to a post at rightOregon.org which contains more objections to “Congestion/Rush Hour Pricing” as well as “subsidies to fuel-efficient” vehicles. These nuances are being considered alongside Oregon’s “Road User Fee” pilot program.

With kind regards,

By: steveo

steveo — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:06:33 +0000

Drivers in fast lanes pay tolls, and drivers in slow lanes receive credits. Such credits can be used toward payment of tolls for future trips, or for other transit-related activities. In New York, credits could be given to lower-income drivers through license plate numbers.

Uh, how do I get my credit chit for not having a car and (almost) never taking up any lane at all?

By: Jane

Jane — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:00:02 +0000

Price incentives should apply to BOTH cars AND mass transit. Increased pricing for cars makes them less attractive; decreased pricing for mass transit would make it more attractive. Revenues from congestion pricing could be applied to subsidize the fare, creating a balanced transportation policy with a carrot AND stick approach to eliminating traffic. Theodore Kheel’s Nurture New York’s Nature has recently commissioned a $100,000 study to study this issue. See http://www.csrwire.com/PressRelease.php?id=7437.
The press and congestion price advocates should join consider ALL types of price incentives. Why look at only half the picture?

By: Doc Barnett

Doc Barnett — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:49:04 +0000

Calling it ‘democratic,’ scare quotes or not, gives the rationing argument more rhetorical weight than it deserves. A free market solution that is imposed by our elected representatives will be as democratic as any other law we live under.

By: P

Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:40:01 +0000

Yeah, I wonder if she is aware of the Cross-Harbor Tunnel. It seems like a much better solution to me.

By: ABG

ABG — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:38:16 +0000

I’m distressed by Furchtgott-Roth’s idea of a truck-only “tunnel from Brooklyn to New Jersey.” Ugh. If my NIMBY neighbors in Queens that have been blocking the cross-harbor rail freight tunnel because it would put more trucks on the street show a double standard and allow a truck tunnel to go through, I’m going to be seeing red.

By: P

Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:44:59 +0000

You’re right Glenn- it’s a good political move: don’t want to pay for it? Don’t use it.

I’m more convinced about the waiter example- it relates to the issue of choice: we could take the ‘democratic’ path and allow the govermnet to eliminate the option to drive for rich and poor alike or we can allow drivers to make these decisions on their own depending on their needs.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:38:24 +0000

I like how she reframed the idea of congestion pricing being a “user fee” instead of a tax. The other way to organize this would be to start a feebate system whereby the taxes collected from the tolls get equally distributed among all people, whether they drive or not. That way you are really only penalizing a small fraction that overuse the roads, bridges or the high speed toll roads.