White House slams carpooling, new road fees better (children, minorities hardest hit...)

Reuters ^ | February 12, 2007 | Tom Doggett

[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.

[Atlas Sneezed]

My point is there is no future in the personal automobile. In 20 years let's get back together and find out who was right.

---

Unless you intend to force everyone into the cities, your notion is preposterous.

Now, I could see a transformation into electric powered vehicles, but outside of the densest urban centers, public transit will always be a socialist plan, not something that free people use without the subsidies of non-users.

Where do you live?

[listenhillary]

You seem to draw your nihilistic future of the personal automobile from the fact that you live in California. The rest of the country is not California.

Want to be rid of the personal automobile in California? OK with me.

[Atlas Sneezed]

There is a missing piece of the of the puzzle, which is the degree to which highways (as other transportation forms) are subsidized. We tend to think that all highway building and maintenance expenses are covered by gasoline taxes, which is not true.

---

What, by income taxes?

All income tax payers benefit from the highway.

Most income tax payers use the highways.

At worst, there are some people who pay more in taxes than highways benefit them, but the vast population receives little or no subsidy.

Most of those who pay into public transit don't use it. A small group in select locations (tending to be controlled by those of a certain political persuasion) receive a great subsidy from others.

See the difference?

[Ben Mugged]

Some of my studies were done in the Bay area, one in Los Angeles (Maglev), one in Orlando, one in Tampa, one in Atlanta, and one in Philadelphia.

Take my opinion as just that, informed opinion. You have made up your mind. Be sure not to allow any additional facts in.

[rockrr]

I'm glad you managed to get that off your chest. Those liberal talking points can really clog up the ol thinker, can't they?!

There is no evidence that "The number of cars will expand to fill all available highways until the entire North American Continent is a..." but it sure does sound frightful.

But I was really drawn to this: "look at every urban area in the US that has built roads over the last 20 years..."

In the State of Washington they haven't built a lane mile of new road (at least on the West Side) in almost 30 years (in their defense, they are building a second bridge on HWY 16 AKA the Tacoma Narrows) What they have built is HOV and special access. They have spend billions of dollars doing so. You are right in one thing - for all they've spent there has been a decrease in traffic-flow efficiencies, not an increase.

In other words, the transportation authorities haven't taken the measures necessary to accommodate the increases in population in all of this time. What is needed (desperately!) is to build more lane miles! There is no "magic pill" that will solve the mess that the liberals have built for us, but ignoring the root cause only postpones (and magnifies) the problem.

[hinckley buzzard]

I used the bus to commute back and forth to work for several years. It took a bit longer than driving, but cheaper and a lot easier on the nerves. And I got to read the morning paper as I rode. Now I don't live anywhere near a bus, and I don't take the paper anymore. So I drive.

[listenhillary]

Your focus is on cities. I avoid them like the plague.

We passed a bill recently in Missouri mandating that federal dollars for roads actually get spent on roads. Pretty radical huh?

We have had a tremendous amount of road construction since then. Adding lanes, replacing bridges, re-surfacing highways. We had a long way to go because MODOT blew it the last time we passed a tax increase and didn't get squat done. They were replaced with people that could get get it done.

[Ben Mugged]

Our company was focused on cities because that is where the money was (and the majority of problems). The best example of the futility of added lanes is the example I gave of the Los Angeles to Las Vegas corridor on Interstate 15. This problem / solution only applies to crowded corridors (like Interstate 4 between Orlando and Tampa).

We no longer do transportation studies. Long term strategy indicated no money in it.

[SoCalPol]

I worked less than 3 miles from my apt.
Going home in the evening by bus took
around 50 mins. with traffic.
Being a type A my eyes were usually bulging out.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

"...fixed (i.e. inconvenient) routes, and slow as molasses."

Whaa...?
Where have you been the for the last half century? MODERN rail systems are NOT slow! Most of the new systems halve the commute time, even with their numerous stops. As for inconvenient routes or stations; now, that all depends on how well the thing is planned. The ones in Europe are great, and the Metro in DC is wonderful. I grew up in NoVa and believe me, driving into DC was always a hassle, and now it's ridiculous! I wouldn't think of driving into DC anymore; the Metro is fast, clean, cheap, and convenient. I will say NoVa got shortchanged on the number routes and stations, but I believe our local governments were to blame for that (a lack of vision thing, ya know.)

[lentulusgracchus]

The real solution to the problem is, of course, privatization

Privatization just intensifies the profit motive and drives the grid toward maximization of revenues, and away from maximizing utility to the public.

Remember, the toll road operator's dream is bumper-to-bumper traffic and no alternative routes. As far as mobility is concerned, the revenue maximizer's optimum outcome looks like total mission failure. That's because the the transportation agenda of a profit enterprise is radically different from that of a mobility enterprise like a state highway department.

[lentulusgracchus]

It's also worth noting that tolling a highway on a major trade corridor makes a lot of sense for simple economic/operational reasons -- because it forces users who have both a start and end point outside the region to pay for their use of the system.

No, it doesn't make sense if you want mobility. See my last post.

Privatizing/tolling drives operators to seek revenues, not traffic relief. Congestion and lack of alternatives are catnip to toll road owner/operators.

If the NASCO Highway ("Trans-Texas Corridor") is built, it will create a powerful, rich lobby against improvement and maintenance of the existing Interstate system -- which was built with more than narrow commercial and financial considerations in mind. The Interstate system is also a military road system, as well as a civil-emergency road system (however inadequate, as Texas and Louisiana found out when Hurricanes "Katrina" and "Rita" approached in 2005).

Or, to spell it out for you further, the NASCO Highway, and tolling in general, will create a powerful lobby against the public mobility, military, and civil-defense interests. Once established, that financial interest, just like the robber-baron trusts, will wrap itself around the public transportation agenda like an anaconda, in order to protect its interest and maximize its revenue at the expense of all other public agenda interests.

Look at an atlas of the Atlantic states, where all the big toll-road systems are. Are their public freeway systems as extensive, coherent, and complete as they could be? Or do they have gaps and discontinuities, that tend to funnel travelers toward the toll turnpikes? Are those states easy to get around? Their cities well-served by abundant free parkways? Or do their road grids subserve the revenue interests of the turnpike operators?

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I disagree with your theory that HOV lanes are a part of forcing people away from commuting. In fact, the HOV allowed me to live farther from work (where I could afford to buy a home), instead of living closer in where the houses were either smaller or schools were worse. HOV is about reducing the number of cars on the road. Because they are reversible (In N.VA.), they don't waste space where regular highway would be built wider.
More roads may be necessary, but I say build HOV as well.
It worked for me.

[RobbyS]

It also goes to subsidize Lufthansa. In any case, our highway system is so much more extensive that comparisons are hard to make.

[rockrr]

You realize of course that HOV lanes will only work if no one (else) uses them.

Think about it.

Another poster wrote about zooming past all the poor schleps at 90mph. The only way he can do that is by utilizing a lane that almost no one else can use. Should any more access it, the lane rapidly slows to the same pace at the rest of the lanes.

lentulusgracchus also brought up the fact that with HOV you must alter your lifestyle to fit the roads instead of the roads being built to accommodate you. What if (when) they decide that HOV lanes are no longer working as they were (mis)designed and raise the passenger limit to 4? Or 6? Or 22? You don't mind though, a little conformity is OK as long as it's for the greater good, right?

Shakespeare said "First we kill all the lawyers" but I propose we follow that up with all the traffic engineers ;'}

[The Pack Knight]

The Tragedy of the Commons, precisely. I'm simply saying that having bureaucrats and politicians deciding what the "market price" is is destined to be a cluster-you-know-what. (never say I didn't make -some- effort to maintain decorum)

That said, taxing highway use rather than gasoline sales might well be an improvement. I'm just saying it's far from a silver bullet. If you really want to put the same economic forces that regulate other forms of infrastructure, the only way to do so is to bite the bullet and privatize the highway system. There'd be pain, sure, but I'm sure there's a way to do it so that the taxpayers are compensated for having paid to build and improve the roads thus far.

One brainstorm idea I'd had was to make the Interstate highway system into a publicly traded corporation, and issue a share to every citizen (sort of like the ownership of the Green Bay Packers). Afterwards, shareholders could sell their shares or buy others' just like any other stock. The highway system would be subject to the economic pressures that exist for any other monopoly. I'm sure it'd be hideously complicated to pull off, but it's just an idea.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Did I miss something? I thought gasoline taxes were the "fees" I pay for using the roads.

Shhhh, don't confuse the politicians with facts. You will be accused of not wanting to pay your "fair share".

[The Pack Knight]

I agree completely. Honestly, I can't see how anyone can logically view a nearly empty HOV lane next to crowded general traffic lanes as anything other than a colossal waste. Unless the existence of the HOV lane actually pushes a large number of people into carpooling who wouldn't otherwise, the stretch of pavement would clearly be better served as just another lane for normal traffic.

[muawiyah]

I did the "slugline" for over 15 years.

The HOV lane on I395/95 in Northern Virginia carries more people than the regular lanes.

Sometimes it even carries more cars.

HOV is a very good way to segregate safe drivers from bad drivers too.

[muawiyah]

The people you carpool with regularly are not strangers. The "slugline" as it became known is filled with friends ~ think of it as a very large carpool!