As I've said before, I think that tolling best associates payment to actual use and gets people to think about their use. In other words, it best puts the cost in their face. Gas taxes just get muddled with the payment for the actual gas.

Overall, I'm going to have to read the paper. I'm only on the second page and it says things I agree with, like how infrastructure capacity can't follow people when they move from the city to the suburbs. To use a local example of that, the suburban school districts around Portland haven't been able to build new schools fast enough while Portland doesn't have enough students to keep theirs open.

Chris said: “the suburban school districts around Portland haven't been able to build new schools fast enough while Portland doesn't have enough students to keep theirs open”

Since the Federal Government requires the bussing of students who live more than a mile from their school, most suburban communities are required to provide bus service for students. Therefore, instead of adding to consumption by building more schools in the suburbs, it would make economic sense to lease some of the inner-city schools or space in inner-city schools to the outlying districts, especially those located on the fringes of the Portland Public School District. However, when such a idea has been brought up in the past, the outlying districts always come up with a multitude of excuses (some somewhat valid and some not) to oppose the concept.

As for tolling, it ought to be the freeloading bicyclists that are tolled as a method to pay their own way for the specialized infrastructure they use and continually rant for more as long as somebody else pays for it. Tolling MUST NOT be used as a device to enact social engineering that attempts to dictate the transport choices people make.

Terry Parker Says:

Tolling MUST NOT be used as a device to enact social engineering that attempts to dictate the transport choices people make.

Why?

There are metropolitan areas where tolls increase during peak hours, to encourage people to drive at different times and reduce traffic congestion. Is this bad?

Telephone and electrical service is frequently priced according to time of use, in order to encourage a more even distribution and reduce peak loads. Is this bad?

social engineering that attempts to dictate the transport choices people make

The real problem is that "social engineering" has been dictating, or at least encouraging, people to make economically-poor transportation and housing choices that have created this mess. People who live in low-density developments have been given new schools and other infrastructure largely paid for by existing residents, and drivers are given oil defense, pollution cleanup and certain road projects that they do not have to directly pay for.

it ought to be the freeloading bicyclists that are tolled

That's fine, as long as they get a 100% credit for trying to have better health and avoid possible health care needs due to a lack of exercise.

The real problem is that "social engineering" has been dictating, or at least encouraging, people to make economically-poor transportation and housing choices that have created this mess.
IMO, ding ding ding we have a winner!

Whenever we talk about housing choice including apartments and compact developments near large-scale employment and shopping centers, we hear how it's "social engineering" and that everyone should be entitled to a huge house on a postage-stamp-sized lot in a small community that's historically had a very small population and needs to only provide basic services.

When we talk about transportation choice, the same people are quick to take over the conversation by claiming how there's enough choice because there's many car manufacturers producing many models. But, when we talk about choice we're actually talking about mass transit, carpooling, intercity transportation providers, etc.

There's been plenty of praise here for the interurbans of early last century, at a time when people lived close to where they worked and shopped near where they lived. There were no mega -shopping centers miles away, just other towns with either a little more or a little less than the town one was already in, and I seriously doubt that the same percentage of people as now needed to commute daily between even Gresham and Portland, just to sit at a desk on a daily basis.

Jeff F. wrote: Telephone and electrical service is frequently priced according to time of use, in order to encourage a more even distribution and reduce peak loads. Is this bad?

Telephone peak/off-peak charges have gone the way of the Operator assisted phone call.

Being a customer service rep for a power company which offers Time-of-Day metering, I can't say that it's a popular option. In fact, I don't think I've ever spoken with an Oregon customer that subscribed to it - despite Oregon being the most generous in the customer's favor (in other words, the least restrictions on "peak hours".)

Jason McHuff wrote: The real problem is that "social engineering" has been dictating, or at least encouraging, people to make economically-poor transportation and housing choices that have created this mess.

Interestingly, when I lived in Beaverton, my commute was about one mile each way...I did all of my business within a very short distance of my home and work.

Now that I live and work in Portland my commute is six miles one-way - within the same city's limits.

It's not simply an issue of "high-density"/"low-density" as Portland has many, many low-density neighborhoods within its city limits, many of which are well supported by the City. The issue is that the City sees fit only to support the rich, who can afford $400K+ homes (regardless of whether in a "high-density" or a "low-density" area), or to providing housing assistance for low-income households.

The result is a squeezing-out of the middle class who makes too much for the city to be willing to help, and too little to afford the housing that the City wants to build. Meanwhile it's these same folks who do not get the generous tax breaks and credits and resulting pay more (as a percentage of income) in taxes to subsidize the two polar extremes.

Vilifying the middle class because they simply are living in the housing that they can afford doesn't serve any favors to anybody. The problem is the City's lack of housing planning for all residents, and a lack of providing transportation to serve all residents.

Telephone peak/off-peak charges have gone the way of the Operator assisted phone call.

That might be true with land-line phones (I think that local service is generally unlimited and long-distance might be the same at all times), but I know that many wireless plans allow unlimited use during nights and weekends but only include a certain amount of minutes for use during weekdays.

And for the record, I just checked my PGE account and am able to sign up for "Time of Use" pricing, but have not considered it.

"A new paper published by Brookings (PDF, 571K) suggests that pricing of commute routes would lead to both reduction in sprawl and more affordable housing."

No way, really? I've been screaming that free market competition would allow just this for ages. I find it disgusting that a Government entity might arbitrarily decide what the price is still beats what is currently in place, especially since the roads do such a poor job of economic sustaining themselves as a service.

"But commentary on the paper also suggests that this may produce inequities for lower income households that may need to be offset somehow."

Then there is the commentary. OMG, I'm sick of the "lower income household" dictating what the rest of us are allowed or disallowed to do. It's morally reprehensible. Fact is, if we want a better world to live in, we HAVE to stop worrying about the lowest common denominator and AT LEAST think about the median to work toward instead of the bottom.

In the end, we want to get to the top, not the bottom. Talk about perverted and misdirected priorities.