$40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology • Hacker News Board

Re: $40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology

#241

Post by moftz » Thu, Dec 07, 2017, 4:59 PM UTC

neves wrote: post #220

This is kind of a joke, but imagine this scenario: If I illegally immigrate to USA, how much I would make just to take a ride with people? I believe I could charge US$20 per trip. One trip early morning, go back by public transportation (it is just 10 miles!), and get another ride. The same at rush hour in the other direction. It would me about 80 * 22 = $1760 each month. Nothing bad. Better than a minimum wage of $1…

There are plenty of slug line commuter parking lots around the area that you can find people that will ride for free in your car so everyone can take advantage of HOV lanes. It's definitely a thing in some places where the passengers have no real need to be going anywhere in DC, people are just trying to get to work.

Re: $40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology

#242

Post by Gargoyle » Thu, Dec 07, 2017, 5:03 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #37

My main concern is that with tolls that high that only people with a lot of money can afford them (I make six figures but I doubt I would ever pay $40 for a toll. I would need much more money). These are also often the most influential people so they may think that everything is OK because they can afford the toll and never suffer in traffic. I think the same is happening with health care. Most people in Congress hav…

It won't really be people who are personally rich as much at it will be people who can expense it to their rich employer or bill it to their rich client.

Re: $40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology

#243

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Dec 07, 2017, 5:05 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #188

harryh wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) If your roads are being overused you can easily ration that by raising the dollar price. 2) What is wrong with wealth accumulation? If credit recipients would rather do that than drive on roads they should be able to do so. They's how they get less poor! 3) If they credits are transferable then you are effectively giving people money. Just in an ass-backwards and overly confusing way.

Setting up a traffic-ration system fairly is probably a lot simpler than giving poor people money.

There are simple and effective (from a traffic-flow-control perspective) solutions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramp_meter

I'd focus more on one of my other punts above: ways of drawing a correspondence between traffic and congestion, on the one hand, and alternative transit options (buses, rail, cycling, telecommuting, etc.) on the other. Market pricing signals fail to provide the coordination many of these options require. Typically, planning-based approaches are required.

Re: $40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology

#244

Post by londons_explore » Thu, Dec 07, 2017, 5:07 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #67

rayiner wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Road capacity is a scarce resource, and it should be allocated with a market mechanism like every other resource. You can then take the economic gain created by the increased efficiency and tax it to provide more public transit services.

Usually yes, but when one or a few suppliers are the sole source of a resource it’s not that simple. Especially when that resource is very widely used for a huge variety of applications. That’s becaus the benefit to society isn’t simple captured in the monetary cost. Consider police vehicles, ambulances and utility maintenance vehicles. Does anybody really think they should have to pay tolls? A real market forces pur…

History has shown that in many cases, it's finding an efficient way to measure and charge for a resource which is the real breakthrough to utilizing the resource.

If the electricity meter hadn't been invented, or cost millions of dollars, it's doubtful your home would even have electricity today.

Re: $40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology

#245

Post by dalbasal » Thu, Dec 07, 2017, 5:17 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #206

dalbasal wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem in this case is not really "not enough money" in an absolute sense. To use the fast lane in a floating price system, you need to outbid the rest of the people. IE it's a function of income distribution. You'd need to solve inequality. That's a great thing to do, but meanwhile we can just fix fast lanes separately. ...just in case inequality still exists in 10 years.

The issue here is that you are prioritizing using "the fast lane in a floating price system" as the most important thing when for a lot of people that will not be the case. They might rather spend that money on housing, or education or chewing gum or who the hell knows what. The utility maximizing choice it to let them make their own decision as they know more about their preferences than you do. You making that deci…

(op)

I don't know why the downvotes, you make valid points.

I think what you say is true, but not in the context of this specific scenario. This scenario starts with a public good that is freely available to all.

In the free-for-all, everyone has equal access to the good. The total value of that is somewhat diminished in theory, because the lack of a price system causes overconsumption ... traffic jams.

In the price system, there is a luxury option. In principle, options are good. If you really want to travel fast, you can for a price. In practice though (because income distribution), most of that negotiation does not happen within one person debating if he really wants that fast lane today. There will be some people (wealthy) for whom it is almost always worthwhile and others for whom it is never worthwhile.

What I am arguing is that calling this highest value use is just false.

Choice here does not extend to substitutes. You don't get anything for taking the slow lane.

This is why I'd like to see some less theoretically pure economists tinker with this. It's possible to create a system where what you say is true. This one is impractical, but one example could be a system where fast lane drivers pay slow lane drivers. Ie, negative pricing.

Maybe you earn fast lane credits for taking the slow lane, to be used in lieu of £40. That way all commuters get a taste.

Re: $40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology

#246

Post by nsnick » Thu, Dec 07, 2017, 5:21 PM UTC

shawnz wrote: post #197

nsnick wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking about ration cards. This has been tried. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ration_stamp

It is still being used in the United States with the food stamps program.

Food stamps are equivalent to cash. A true rationing program as proposed would prevent you from using cash. This creates black markets which is why it is bad.

Re: $40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology

#247

Post by marginofterror » Thu, Dec 07, 2017, 5:43 PM UTC

neves wrote: post #220

This is kind of a joke, but imagine this scenario: If I illegally immigrate to USA, how much I would make just to take a ride with people? I believe I could charge US$20 per trip. One trip early morning, go back by public transportation (it is just 10 miles!), and get another ride. The same at rush hour in the other direction. It would me about 80 * 22 = $1760 each month. Nothing bad. Better than a minimum wage of $1…

Why would you pay someone when we already have a mechanism in place here to pick up additional people for free? See http://www.slug-lines.com/ for more information.

Edit: Didn't notice the comment below, that's what I get for not refreshing the page...

Re: $40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology

#248

Post by amalcon » Thu, Dec 07, 2017, 6:38 PM UTC

NoGravitas wrote: post #154

mattmcknight wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite...there aren't, and haven't been for over 20 years, any non-HOV lanes on the road at rush hour. They expanded the rush hour HOV time period, so it catches people that left early or late to avoid it. They also removed an exception for hybrid vehicles with special plates and traffic to the airport. The real issue is that the NIMBYs in Arlington won't let them expand the road at all.

Expanding roads doesn't help with congestion ([Induced Demand][0]). So no, NIMBYs in Arlington are not the real issue. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Your own link says it's less absolute than you're making it out to be:

> A comparison of congestion data from 1982 to 2011 by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute clearly demonstrated that additional roadways reduced the rate of congestion increase. When increases in road capacity were matched to the increase demand, growth in congestion was found to be much lower.

> ... one study ... found that "over a six- to eight-year period following freeway expansion, around twenty percent of added capacity is 'preserved,' and around eighty percent gets absorbed or depleted. Half of this absorption is due to external factors, like growing population and income ...

Though it is likely true that expanding metro lines into VA would be more cost-effective here.

Re: $40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology

#249

Post by kevin_b_er » Thu, Dec 07, 2017, 6:40 PM UTC

olympus wrote: post #4

I don't think people are being unreasonable by being unhappy with a $40 toll. The way the article words it, solo drivers all of a sudden saw a $40 toll where they previously had no permission to drive at all. What actually happened was that people were expecting to see a $6 toll be put in place and instead saw a $40. Imagine going to McDonald's where your friend told you that you could get a Filet o' Fish for $1 but…

You did if you were driving a hybrid vehicle. You went from free to $40.

Re: $40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology

#250

Post by avar » Thu, Dec 07, 2017, 6:49 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #237

avar wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discouraging driving in general is one thing with one market price, discouraging driving where it leads to congestion is another thing with a higher market price. Not all vehicles that cause congestion even use gasoline, which is another reason for why trying to solve congestion with higher fuel taxes is a bad idea. Your Tesla is just as bad for congestion as a gas guzzler. Even ignoring that, regional fuel charges d…

Congestion already has it's own price directly in increased travel time. Which pushes people to use optimal routes to a destination. However, routing around congestion increases pollution via trip length. So you want to increase peoples ability to go from A > B, not hinder peopling moving from A > B with increased cost. PS: We want higher mileage people to get electric cars, so having no transit tax actually efficien…

    > Congestion already has it's own price
    > directly in increased travel time.

Which is clearly not enough, as detailed in the article. If people only had to pay with their own time they would, and the road would be congested, hence the high toll. This is basic supply & demand.

You just keep asserting that people should pay for their pollution, I agree! But that's not always the maximum price you should pay.

    > charge based on odometer readings.

Which would be another case of not charging based on the actual cost. You could drive your street legal car around in circles on a private track, and you should pay almost no road tax, but someone who exclusively uses public roads should pay more. Under this scheme you'd pay the same for both cars.