Posted on 02/12/2007 1:03:09 PM PST by presidio9
Carpooling won't do much to reduce U.S. highway congestion in urban areas, and a better solution would be to build new highways and charge drivers fees to use them, the White House said on Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT
"It is increasingly appropriate to charge drivers for some roadway use in the same way the private market charges for other goods and services," the White House said in its annual report on the U.S. economy.
While some urban areas have designated roads for vehicles with two or more passengers, those high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are often underused because carpooling is becoming less popular, the administration said.
Based on the latest data supplied by the White House, only about 13 percent of motorists carpooled to work in 2000. That compared with 20 percent of daily American commuters in 1980.
"This trend makes it unlikely that initiatives focused on carpooling will make large strides in reducing vehicle use," the White House said.
Building more highways won't reduce congestion either, unless drivers are charged a fee, according to the administration.
"If a roadway is priced -- that is, if drivers have to pay a fee to access a particular road -- then congestion can be avoided by adjusting the price up or down at different times of day to reflect changes in demand for its use," the White House said. "Road space is allocated to drivers who most highly value a reliable and unimpaired commute."
Critics of such fees argue that road tolls would make new highways reserved mostly for wealthy drivers, who are more likely to travel in expensive, gas-guzzling vehicles.
But the White House said urban road expansions should be focused on highways where drivers demonstrate a willingness to pay a fee that is higher than the actual cost of construction, allowing communities to avoid raising taxes on everyone to build the roads.
The administration argued that congestion pricing is already used by many providers of goods and services: movie theaters charge more for tickets in the evening than they do at midday, just as ski resorts raise lift prices on weekends. Similarly, airlines boost prices on tickets during peak travel seasons and taxi cabs raise fares during the rush hour.
That's an excellent point, and something that should not be overlooked.
Of course, you have to remember that there are very few places outside densely-populated urban areas where mass transit is consistently faster than auto travel -- even during the busiest times of the day.
Well, the pols don't really want to modify the behavior of too many people, or they wouldn't be getting as much extra tax money as they crave.
(Notice how I worked the word 'crave' into a reply to a post about tobacco? Clever, huh?)
I can see what you are saying. There does seem to be a move to encourage a tightening in of the population to be "in closer" into urban centers. But people travel for a great variety of reasons, to go to a doctor for a second opinion, see a play, any number of other things. It will do more than just "reduce traffic". It will cut into the ability of free people to do as they wish with their lives.
I have a hard time believing that any understanding of a "right to travel" -- either recent or pre-1800 -- would include an obligation on the part of the Federal government to provide a free roadway system whose design is aimed almost entirely at accommodating suburban travelers who wish to drive to and from work by themselves during certain hours of the day.
Why would you marry someone like that?
The "right to travel" that is discussed in the Supreme Court cases is not a right to travel in the sense of a right to go from your house to the mall, but a right to move from state to state. There are three components to the right: (a) the right to enter one state & leave another; (b) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger; and (c) for those who want to become permanent residents, the right to be treated equally to native born citizens.
In fact, Saenz was a case that dealt with state restrictions on the amount of welfare that a new resident could receive. The court found that such a restriction was violative of the right to travel--this, of course, is a far cry from anything that has to do with highways.
I had a total knee replacement in my 40s.
Due to a previous large bone tumor taken out earlier
I have complications from that along with the TKR.
Lower back and hip about gone also. Also will have sooner or later a TKR on the other knee which is gone.
Had to work full time after each surgery.
You charge your kids for hugs, I'll bet.
Ever bill 'em for mother's milk?
Bus fare here is $2 - $2.50 one way
Under those guidelines, tolls could only be charged on roads where travelers were given the option of using a parallel "free" road. So the choice for a motorist would be to: 1) pay a toll for a faster trip; or 2) "pay" (in the form of lost time) for a slower trip.
This is all just a silly argument over an undeniable fact . . . that public infrastructure will always be used to excess when it is "free" to the users.
When people are too free, they don't appreciate it. Turn all their rights into privileges and sell them, and marvel at the improvement! So many dollars for habeas corpus, so many dollars to be registered to vote. Fist-class citizenship $40,000/year; second-class, $5000, and so on. Right down to the economy plan, where somebody owns you and works your back over with a whip every day.< / sarc >
I was listening to Rush's guest host today in the first hour. He was talking about Diane Sawyer's interview with the Iranian President. While discussing that, he mentioned another report that Diane Sawyer had done on North Korea. She was showing their orderly schools and condemned American schools for the expression of "individuality" that can make it so difficult to teach young people. If only they could be put into rows and made to follow orders, it would be more efficient.
Why would you treat your fellow citizens any differently?
Because they paid for it and will never get it back again?
Because $4 billion may have been less than fair market?
Because the people owned it, but some bureaucrats sold it?
Because you wouldn't sell your Exxon-Mobil stock because they had two down quarters in a row?
Or maybe basically because you don't dump assets just because your crummy pricing scheme has revenues in a dip. Mismanagement is temporary and curable; nonownership isn't.
And that same land owner doesn't want to lose it to a TTC.
You just outed yourself as a Marxist.
You "give" them their own tax money?
You "give" them their own roads? Their freedom to travel?
You be mighty generous, Baas.
I hadn't heard about turning 290 into tollroad. I did see that it was getting built up. I figured it was to finally bypass the lights used by local traffic (as was done on the Houston end some years back).
Glad to be of service.
Traffic is indicative of the amount of business being done. When the traffic strangles business, business will move elsewhere. Traffic problem solved. Want business, build roads. Want depression, don't worry about it.
Sounds nice if you live in a good climate. Doesn't work when you have freezing winter temperatures or broiling summer heat.
For example, a public transportation effort here in Austin has been largely a failure because a bus/tram/blight rail/etc. rarely takes you exactly where you need to go and you are forced to hoof it several blocks in 95-degree heat to get where you intended, often dripping in sweat.
The socialists have thrown all sorts of money and environutsy ideas at the problem but you just aren't going to talk most people out of their air conditioned cars in July.
Um, they do get it back.
Because $4 billion may have been less than fair market?
There was open bidding. They got fair market.
Because the people owned it, but some bureaucrats sold it?
The people owned an asset that was losing money each year. They realized a gain.
Because you wouldn't sell your Exxon-Mobil stock because they had two down quarters in a row?
I would if I got way more than it was worth.
FYI - note the part about the underused HOV lanes. Certainly is true in this other Washington.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.