Update on Tolling


According to Saturday’s O, anti-toll signs are beginning to appear along 99W in Newberg. Meanwhile, motorists on 99W are going to be randomly sampled to determine origins and destinations and their attitudes toward polling.

This article also launched a thread on Blue Oregon.

Also in the news last week, Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana, enthused all over the op-ed page of the New York Times about the virtues of tolling. A large part of his enthusiasm seems to be about using “other people’s money”. I’m assuming that means that their toll road attracts a lot of out-of-state traffic.

I don’t believe I’ve seen any analysis on how much of the traffic on the three toll projects ODOT is looking at comes from outside the immediate region.


32 responses to “Update on Tolling”

  1. Whaaa. Anti-Tollers. These are the same people who don’t want to pay taxes for roads, don’t want to pay for transit, to want to liberalize and allow the free-market to work, and then on top of that complain about high gas prices and the expensiveness of cars.

    A bad case of wanting the cake, and eating the whole thing too.

  2. I’m hoping to start a dialogue about the value of tolling.

    In my opinion, a widely believed misconception about tolling is that it can work as a traffic demand management strategy. Having grown up travelling on tolled highways in the Northeast and spending part of my career evaluating traffic circulation in central and south Florida where tolled facilities cannot be avoided, I know that they don’t provide any demand management function. The more effective demand management strategies for peak period conditions include HOV lanes, contra-flow lanes, limited parking.

    Yes, on-board tolling technology can speed traffic through facilities, and variable pricing can, for a short while, divert trips to other time periods. The fallacy in imaging that tolling can eliminate peak hour auto trips or SOVs on a large enough scale* to make any difference is that it assumes that those trips are discretionary. I don’t buy that — people who can travel at other times would not travel during congested periods.

    So, the benefits of tolling need to be limited to the fact that they raise revenue. The policy questions we need to be asking are: 1)should we use “other people’s money” hoping that the private partner’s goals match the public good of new infrastructure (which is unlikely), or 2) since government has many options for raising revenue, why can’t a public entity build the tolled infrastructure that is more certain to meet public needs.

    What do other people think?

    * Given the experiences in Singapore and London, area-wide tolling/pricing may be a valid demand management strategy. NYC, Stockholm and SF are also looking into it.

  3. In my opinion, a widely believed misconception about tolling is that it can work as a traffic demand management strategy. Having grown up travelling on tolled highways in the Northeast and spending part of my career evaluating traffic circulation in central and south Florida where tolled facilities cannot be avoided

    Sorin –

    I drove the tolled Florida Turnpike and/or the “free” I-95 between Miami and Boca Raton on a regular basis. The two roads are parallel and I guarantee you the tolls had an impact.

    The fact is tolls alone can eliminate the need for new capacity in the I-5 and I-205 corridor, but they will have a bigger impact at a lower price the more good alternatives are available for people to use.

    e fallacy in imaging that tolling can eliminate peak hour auto trips or SOVs on a large enough scale* to make any difference is that it assumes that those trips are discretionary

    But the data says that even at rush hour the majority of trips are discretionary. People are running errands, going to the store, meeting friends, etc. Many people have enough job flexiblity that they do not need to commute at a specific time. Moreover, tolls also cause people to use transit, car pool and find other ways to share the cost of their commute.

    And for some people it will be factored into whether that new house in rural Clark County is really cheaper. If you are paying an extra $25-50/week to drive to work, that slightly lower house payment might not seem so enticing.

  4. fyi, Stockholm’s experiment with congestion charging has already begun. The 6-month trial is scheduled to come to a close in July, with a vote on whether to make the plan permanent on Sept 17.

    Results have been favorable so far (approx. 20% reduction in trips) and public opinion has moved in favor of the scheme (prior to implementation, the tolls were very unpopular). More information here:

    http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/templates/page.aspx?id=183

    Also, we may want to distinguish between tolls used to pay for the cost of roads (like those in Florida) and congestion tolls, which are set, in theory, to match drivers’ societal costs (congestion, pollution, etc.) True congestion tolling with real-time variable tolls will have a much different effect on travel patterns than a fixed toll used to pay-off construction and maintenance costs.

  5. Chris — Of course some people might consider moving to avoid tolls, and some Vancouver residents might begin to seek work in Vancouver and some companies might be inclined to set up shop in Vancouver — but until the region’s business/service epi-center is located out of Portland, tolls should not influence a measurable number of people.

    The overriding issues for commuters do not involve minor user fees — it’s the house/value, overall tax burden, schools, other services, etc., that drive their decision-making.

  6. Ross — When was the last time you drove the NJ Turnpike, or across the Hudson on the Tappen Zee Bridge, the GW Bridge or Holland/Lincoln tunnels? Have tolls, unbelievably bad congestion, very expensive parking, and a myriad of great transit/commuter rail and ferry options had any effect on traffic congestion?

    Same goes for the East River facilities — there are four free East River bridges and two tolled tunnels into the NYC cbd and they’re equally congested with some relief at the Midtown Tunnel in the AM due to the contraflow lane to the toll booths.

    Is the NJ Tpke better than the free Route 1? The answer is no.

    As I recall, the Florida Tpke is some distance west of the major traffic generators in South Florida (Miami airport, port, downtown, Miami Beach). In the Orlando area, the tolled Beeline and East-West Expwy are notoriously congested and their parallel competitors are local roads with commercial strips…the Toll Rd Authority saw to that.

    So, apart from your personal experience, I’d say that in general the tolled facilities are not reducing congestion.

    As for “discretionary” trips occurring in the peak periods — let’s be clear about who is defining discretionary. If someone shops or drops children off, etc., as linked to the commute trip, that’s not discretionary.

    Tolls across the Columbia River will be associated with new capacity. The CRC analyses indicate we need added capacity and safer highway facilities; we need to be realistic that tolls will not reduce highway demand or significantly change origins and destinations or mode splits — $3.20/gallon gas isn’t doing so.

  7. The best road I ever drove was the NY Turnpike, a toll freeway from Buffalo to Connecticut, more or less.

    Instead of tolls, what about a substantial fuel tax, much more than now. It more equitably puts the cost on all users based, more or less according it vehicle weight/road wear. Funds are earmarked to road cost and fuel conservation projects.

  8. I was not very clears above. The NY Turnpike goes all the way to NYC, but I only drove the upstate portion.

    I see fuel tax as a form of toll, a more democratic toll. If the toll is for certain routes, then they get maintained better than the public routes. The result is an inequity based on ability to pay.

  9. Have tolls, unbelievably bad congestion, very expensive parking, and a myriad of great transit/commuter rail and ferry options had any effect on traffic congestion?

    Have you looked at the cost of an apartment in Manhattan recently or the housing/job ratio? Those bridges aren’t priced to manage traffic in Manhattan. Of course its congested. Practically every street in Manhattan is congested. That seems to be WashDOT’s vision for Portland.

    Tolls across the Columbia River will be associated with new capacity. The CRC analyses indicate we need added capacity and safer highway facilities; we need to be realistic that tolls will not reduce highway demand or significantly change origins and destinations or mode splits — $3.20/gallon gas isn’t doing so.

    That has been WashDOT’s position and it doesn’t surprise me that it hasn’t changed. Congestion is the natural outcome of 7 freeway lanes converging on a 3 lane bridge, which is how WashDOT designed the Vancouver transportation network. But that is also the natural result of a five lane bridge feeding in to a three lane freeway on the Portland side of the river. The difference is then it won’t be WashDOT’s problem.

    As far as I know there has never been any modeling done for what level of tolling would be needed to reduce traffic to manageable levels. I suspect that to those who “know” the solution is a new bridge that is a dangerous question to ask.

    Michael –

    The problem with fuel taxes is that they only roughly charge for miles driven and, much more importantly, they don’t account for where and when those miles were driven. The cost of providing enough space for vehicles crossing the Columbia during rush hour is many times greater than the cost of providing space for all the vehicles at 3 am.

    Tolling, done properly, charges additional fees to people who put additional burdens on the infrastructure. And, like all economic signals, it causes people to change their behavior to reflect its true cost.

  10. Ross,

    You missed my point. It costs $9/day to enter Manhattan from central NJ, and the volume of that trip pair is growing.

    User costs are extremely high in places with high levels of congestion — So. California, Bay Area, Miami, DC, Atlanta, Seattle — but those places keep growing economically; traffic volumes increase and congestion worsens.

    Traveler’s tolerance for the cost of driving is much higher than most of us think, particularly in light of: 1) the traveler’s personal needs and 2) their aversion to the alternatives.

    Manhattan has always been expensive, and I’m not sure what you meant about the housing/jobs ratio. My point was that despite great alternative options to/from the cbd and a very expensive trip by car, traffic volume is increasing. In fact, travel by car is increasing in every region except — I hear — ours’.

    You can argue politics, idiocy, even conspiracies all you want. The fact is Americans maximize the use of their cars even when it’s not in their “economic” interest.

    With respect to WSDOT and the CRC, they are simply providing information. There will be an alternatives analysis effort to review the kinds of points you’re making.

    Michael — You’re refering to the New York Thruway which does not enter Manhattan. It’s southern end is in Orange County — north of Westchester County which is north of the city.

  11. “Congestion is the natural outcome of 7 freeway lanes converging on a 3 lane bridge, which is how WashDOT designed the Vancouver transportation network.”

    So its the 7 lanes’ fault, not the 3 lane bridge and Oregon side?
    I venture over to Vancouver occasionally, they seem to have a better freeway/road system with more capacity and less congestion except for the at the bridge during rush hour.
    One things for certain, light rail won’t help them any more thanit has us.

    And it’s the lack of bridge pricing that has Manhatten congested?
    Not the millions of people and high density?

    “”Practically every street in Manhattan is congested. That seems to be WashDOT’s vision for Portland.””
    That’s Metro’s vision for Portland.

  12. You missed my point. It costs $9/day to enter Manhattan from central NJ

    Which is considerably less than the cost of parking in Manhattan.

    I’m not sure what you meant about the housing/jobs ratio

    There are a very large number of jobs in Manhattan c oompared to the number of residences for workers. Many of those jobs are extremely well-paid.

    Traveler’s tolerance for the cost of driving is much higher than most of us think

    Not every user is price-sensitive. But the question for tolls on I-5 is whether there are enough price-sensitive users driving at peak hours in the I-5 corridor for tolling to reduce future congestion to manageable levels.

    User costs are extremely high in places with high levels of congestion — So. California, Bay Area, Miami, DC, Atlanta, Seattle — but those places keep growing economically; traffic volumes increase and congestion worsens.

    I think those areas are WashDOT’s models. Oregon’s model of a balanced transportation system is altogether different. If Portland wants to follow the model of Seattle and California, then by all means, build more freeways to distant suburbs and parking lots everywhere else.

    But widening the bridge is just one step in that process. You need to have the capacity everywhere else to handle the extra traffic once its across the bridge. That means more capacity whereever that traffic is going whether on local streets, at exits and entrances to the freeways or on the freeway system itself.

  13. “Oregon’s model of a balanced transportation system is altogether different.”

    What’s “balanced” about it?
    That’s a nice label but what’s it supposed to mean?
    Proportinality is an important component in figuring any notion of “balance”.

    Seems to me this “balance” speak has been no more than a convenient declaration to lend legitimacy where it is certainly lacking.

    Since the bulk of transporation use, vehicular mode, is deliberatly being neglected, (the failure to accomodate growth) “balanced” is just about the last thing our system is.

    Especaily since there seems to a simultaneous recognition of congestion, with it’s soaring costs, right along with the push to keep the emphasis on anything but road capacity.

    We can’t toll our way out of congestion.
    Or rail our way out, or bike our way out because the bulk of transportation in this entire region of the continent is vehicular.

    It will be next year, next decade and next century with other uses remaining a small fraction of choice while never approaching anything resembling “balance”.

  14. Steve, one question:

    what happens to “vehicular” traffic once inexpensive energy is no longer available?

    If North Americans, as you say, are still all driving single occupancy style in the next century, where will the energy to provide for this lifestyle come from?

    Certainly, we don’t even have a single notion at this point as to a particular energy source that will provide anything close to the level of energy provided by hydrocarbons this past century.

  15. Nathan asks, “what happens to “vehicular” traffic once inexpensive energy is no longer available?”

    Well there has been a shift already to smaller diesel powered delivery vehicles. Twenty years ago where would you have seen the Isuzu or Aveco trucks? Everything had big engines. While I am not sure the big ethanol push is on the right track, there is a lot of exploration of alternatuve fuels. Right now, ethanol production is grossly inefficient but some think other biomass–than corn kernels–will more efficiently produce this fuel. A solution will arise sooner or later, but I figure there will be some major price fluctuations, as delivery costs are added into retail prices–capitalizing upon any fuel crisis. If vehicles could be lighter in weight, diesel or biodiesel could provide some solution to the problem.

    I would really rather see long distance rail delivery–but how would you distribute locally without trucks?

    Y’know, carpooling is probably one of the simplest alternatives to the single occupant commuter vehicle. This should be promoted by voluntary groups or governments. Anyone had experience with the organizational end of carpooling efforts?

  16. Steve,

    I agree with your premise that personal vehicles will continue to be an important method of travel in the future.

    However, as I understand it, ethanol and biodiesel, as well as lighter trucks and cars, cannot even come close to accounting for the necessary energy. These “solutions” will help us in the short term, however, we need a total revolution in how we obtain energy in order to replace hydrocarbons.

    Now, I think its possible we will uncover the mystery of free energy in the near future. If you’re a proponent of extropy, and it sounds like you are, than I’d think you’d agree that in order to keep developing our civilization, we need a whole lot of cheap energy.

    The problem is, we haven’t devoloped cheap energy and were definitley not “right around the corner. Furthermore, in the current global political climate, cheap energy would be abused for the benefit of the few rather than harnessed for the benefit of all.

    So in the meantime, I think we need to make some changes. Let’s face it, we would all be more content if we could walk to work and to services. I think we need to make it a priority to transform our cities into livable, walkable places… Now that doesn’t mean that everyone must live in a dense environment. But a lot of people prefer that. And I realize that some people enjoy living in quiet suburbs.

    We need variety, but I think our priorities should be centered on changing our “car only” daily life.

    Part of the reason our transportation system in NA is so unbalanced (ie high car to rail/bike/etc ratio) is because of the way we built our cities. So let’s at least do what we can to give people options.

    Change is always difficult. But its also necessary. As we mature as a city, region and continent, change is inevitable. so let’s go with the change instead of fighting it.

  17. Even looking ahead 25 years is dicey at best. In 1980 gas prices were high and everyone was going to be driving fuel efficient cars. Then came the SUV craze where efficiencies were used to increase the siae and power of vehicles instead of their mileage.

    And, given that uncertainty, the longer we delay in making major investments, the more likely they are to actually meet our real future needs. If tolling I-5 can push back the decision even ten or 15 years on building a new bridge, we may have a much clearer picture of what kind of bridge is actually needed.

    One of the difficulties with every planning group is that after spending a year or two working on solutions they are not inclined to decide on a “no build” option. People on the committee (and those paying for it) want a solution that is proportional to the effort they put into finding one. They aren’t about to say “here is a small, cheap solution to the immediate problem that doesn’t cost much more than you spent on studying the problem. In 15 years, you should start this whole process all over again if that doesn’t solve it.”

    In the context of I-5, there has been some effort by people on the various advisory committees to redefine the problem from “what do we do about congestion on the bridge?” to “what can we do improve transportation links between Vancouver and Portland?”

    Tolling really will only answer the first question. It is a means of managing the exisiting freeway capacity so that it will be usesd more efficiently.

    WashDOT and others involved in the planning process have been very clear they are not interested in finding answers to that second question. Discussions of local arterial bridges were met with derisive comments about that being the two cities’ problem, not theirs.

  18. Ross — I see you remain convinced that tolling will influence and/or manage vehicular demand. We’ll have to stay in touch on any new data that comes around.

    Still, we can agree that the primary issues we need to pay attention to involve the function of any new facility and how the system would perform without a new facility; and then discuss how feasible it might be. It sounds like you’re seeing the CRC process, for example, as a fait accompli and that tolls could be a way to reduce vehicular demand to a point where an expanded freeway is unnecessary. Did I get that right?

    We’ll have to see what the anaylsis says about that.

  19. I see you remain convinced that tolling will influence and/or manage vehicular demand.

    I don’t think there is any doubt about it. Price is a factor in people’s choices and tolling would raise the cost of driving across the bridge.

    We’ll have to see what the anaylsis says about that.

    I had understood that the tolling of existing capacity as an alternative to a new bridge was not under consideration. The tolling discussion has been about helping to pay part of the cost of new capacity. It would be interesting to see what level of tolling would be required to maintain the current levels of traffic over the bridge off into the future.

    how the system would perform without a new facility;

    The first question is how it would function with a new facility. Given the current development patterns in Clark County, I don’t see how new capacity contributes to a solution. Clark County is building houses much faster than it is creating jobs and that is projected to continue for he forseeable future. The only constraint on that development pattern is the capacity of the transportation system to commute to Portland for employment. Add capacity and you will add more commuters. And you have to find a way to get them off the system and to their destinations without the local street system failing. I don’t think you can do that.

    One of the dangers of Transportation Demand Management and agressive projections of mode splits is that they can make it appear that the system will work better with the new capacity. Its a false promise if, like tolls on existing capacity, the actual TDM measures are politically unacceptable.

    For instance, at one point during the Trade Coorridor Study the modeling for the widening at Delta Park showed a reduction in traffic at the Rose Quarter and over the Fremont Bridge. To say that is counter-intuitive is to understate it. As it turned out, the models included agressive TDM targets which dramatically reduced the traffic from the base level.

  20. Nathan asked,
    “””Steve, one question:
    what happens to “vehicular” traffic once inexpensive energy is no longer available?”””

    What are you talking about?
    It’s relatively costly right now. The entire cost to drive even more. So What. It’s obviously worth it as the masses continue to choose vehicular traffic.
    You apparently want to force other choices now simply because you “imagine” some distant scenario where people will then have no choice.

    Energy and vehicle evolution is in steady flux
    as progress is nonstop.

    You might as well be arguing an impending high cost of horses and buggies 100 years ago.

    Vehicles of all types are fantastic and getting better every year.

    100 years from now fossil fuels will be as obsolete as the horse and buggie.

    And not becasue of the pandamonium you subscribe to but because of transitions from advances yet to be achieved.

    You have nothing but flailing specualtion in your predictions of widespread soaring energy costs bringing everything to a halt.

    So what about “when inexpensive energy is no longer available”?

    What, when and how is that?

  21. Steve said:

    “We can’t toll our way out of congestion.
    Or rail our way out, or bike our way out because the bulk of transportation in this entire region of the continent is vehicular.”

    True, but I have yet to see any growing region pave their way out of congestion either. And to the extent that they have or have tried (LA/Phoenix/etc.), I wouldn’t want to live there.

  22. Steve,

    Trillions of public dollars invested in roads and sprawl, and a fraction of that invested in any other mode has pretty much eliminated any “choice” people in this country had about how they get around. It’s patently false to claim that people have “chosen” to drive everywhere…they do that because they have little practical alternative.

    When given viable alternatives, people will use them.

  23. “”” It’s patently false to claim that people have “chosen” to drive everywhere…they do that because they have little practical alternative.”””

    Oh BS, why do you think people with children are moving out of Portland?
    Among other trends.

    You haven’t “seen any growing region pave their way out of congestion either” because you have
    transit blinders on.

    I guarantee you that if LA had not accomodated growth with additonal freeway capacity their congestion would be far mnore severe than it is today. It’s pure foolishiness to believe that capacity demands have no validity when it comes to vehicular traffic.

    San Antonio, the same size as the Portland area, has done a fantastic job of accomodating growth whereas Portland continues to retard growth with haphazard notions resulting in high cost-low benefit policies which are clearly lowering livability region wide.

    Even locally congestion was relieved with “paving” improvements at the new Bridgeport Village.

    Portland has failed to accomodate growth and the UGB is in total dysfunction as a planning tool serving only to blindly block development versus guiding it to a well reasoned outcome.

  24. Steve said:

    “You haven’t ‘seen any growing region pave their way out of congestion either’ because you have
    transit blinders on.”

    Ahhh, that’s my second favorite argument from the blogosphere. Slapping a label on someone rather than debating the facts (my #1 favorite is the phony libertarian “let the individuals decide” when, other than the times when elections are fixed, individuals actually do decide via a representative government).

    San Antonio is congested, plus they have virtually zero mass transit compared to Portland. Any attempts to spin it otherwise ignore two realities:

    1. San Antonio is a large (top 10) city but a small (#25 or so) metro area, and some studies look at stats relative to the city size instead of the more telling metro size; and
    2. They are ignoring the traffic jams on the I-35 corridor BETWEEN San Antonio and Austin (75 miles apart, no air service, lots of commuters).

    You can’t pave your way out of congestion, period. It’s simple physics. Cram a bunch of cars onto a road, regardless of the number of lanes. People maintain a certain stopping distance. Someone applies their brakes and/or changes lanes. Chain reaction slowdown. Boom. Congestion.

    I never said that mass transit, bikes, etc. relieves congestion, it certainly does not and possibly never will. But I like the fact that we have mass transit as an option and I hope they continue to improve it.

  25. “””2. They are ignoring the traffic jams on the I-35 corridor BETWEEN San Antonio and Austin (75 miles apart, no air service, lots of commuters).”””

    Wow! quite a lesson for me.

    Portland is ignoring the traffic jams on every corridoor.

    Have you ever spent any time driving recently around San Antonio?

    No. you have not.

    But you pretend to know the region?

  26. But you pretend to know the region?

    Even a cursory search on Google turns up numerous articles about congestion in San Antonio and how it is getting worse. They are considering a new toll road as their next step, bringing this discussion back on topic.

    It’s relatively costly right now. The entire cost to drive even more. So What. It’s obviously worth it as the masses continue to choose vehicular traffic.

    Congestion is one of the costs of driving and it is clear people are willing to pay that cost. But what the tolling discussion has demonstrated is that people aren’t willing to pay the full cost of a new uncongested road. If you set the toll high enough to pay for it, people won’t use it. If you set it low enough so people will use it, you can’t recover the cost even at full capacity and beyond.

    What tolls can do is raise the cost to price sensitive drivers to eliminate trips they don’t consider valuable, so that the capacity is available for the higher value trips such as freight and multi-passenger vehicles. But that still isn’t going to pay the full cost of a new facility.

  27. [Personally directed comment removed.]

    Greg (and others) I will remind you that rules for this site don’t allow comments talking about other participants.

    I try to enforce this and the other rules with a light hand, but occassionally I have to draw the line to keep things civil.

    If you find yourself using the word “you” in your comment, start hitting backspace…

  28. Ross — Thanks for merging us back onto the topic of tolls. The SH 130 bypass between San Antonio and a point north of Austin will be tolled and is being built to expand highway capacity for the incredibly busy (and unsafe) I-35 trade corridor. It’s being tolled to finance the facility.

    I haven’t been persuaded from my original thesis — tolls are not an effective traffic management strategy — in this stream. I’ve seen the results of the SR 91, Dulles Tollway, Bay Bridge HOT lanes, etc., but I know that being that they’re new facilities, these results are far too preliminary to make any conclusions with except for short-term effects. You can say the same for the area-wide pricing in London and Stockholm.

    Just as with the added operating costs to shippers from congestion, we figure out how to absorb those costs; sometimes, after reviewing our options. And the formulas in our heads when we think this through consider a variety of traffic performance and other measures in terms of cost, reliability, hassle, etc. Some economists like to think of the mental process we use to consider our choices as being singularly focused on economic efficiency (i.e., rationality), but that may not factor in the whiney, lazy and “putting on the blinders” behaviors that are so much a part of decision-making.

    Perhaps I’m too cyncial — spending a +20 year career on projects intended to get people out of their cars may do that to people — but I don’t understand how we in Portland think that congestion and user fees will change our behaviors when:

    * Despite incredible great transit services and incredibly high vehicle operating and user costs, vehicular travel and vmt is growing in our big metropolitan centers;
    * Despite it being synonymous with congesion and smog, southern California’s population, economy and employment continues to grow at rapid rates, and with some rare exceptions, has been on an upward curve consistently since the 1920s.
    * We say the same about the Puget Sound yet it is growing faster than Portland.

    Like free 411 calls and ATM usage, we barely blink an eye when these “conveniences” begin to cost us.

    Until our alternatives to driving can effectively compete with the fantasies promised in the media about car ownership, tolling, transit service, and traffic management (except for parking — there’s where our solutions lie) will not be enough to measurably change our travel behaviors.

  29. Sorry website admins, my bad.

    Not that it matters but I have spent time driving in at least half of the 30 largest metros (including SA) in the past five years.

    They are all congested. Even the ones with toll roads.

  30. I don’t understand how we in Portland think that congestion and user fees will change our behaviors when:

    * Despite incredible great transit services and incredibly high vehicle operating and user costs, vehicular travel and vmt is growing in our big metropolitan centers;
    * Despite it being synonymous with congesion and smog, southern California’s population, economy and employment continues to grow at rapid rates, and with some rare exceptions, has been on an upward curve consistently since the 1920s.
    * We say the same about the Puget Sound yet it is growing faster than Portland.

    1) I think we need to realize that most American cities are being redesigned to require greater VMT. Given those changes, people will spend a lot of money on their car because they spend a lot of their lives in it. Even in Portland, great transit service is limited. Many people simply don’t have any transit service, muchless Trimet’s standard of 15 minute headways within walking distance of their home and other destinations.

    2) There really isn’t any question of whether tolls and higher fees will have an impact on some people. The question is how high do the tolls need to go to get the desired effect and are those levels reasonable or politically possible. The decision not to even evaluate tolling of existing capacity as an alternative to new capacity is a recognition that this is a political problem, not a technical one.

    3) It is likely that Southern California and Seattle are growing despite their highway systems, not because of them. Their thriving with horrific congestion may be an indication of just how strong the other factors are that lead to economic growth relative to an uncongested transportation system.

  31. A recent letter published in the New York Sun by Queens Chamber of Commerce President Irrera expressed his economic concerns toward his borough and the City on why congestion pricing would not work here. Here were my counterpoints to his issues that should be discussed.

    First, he asserted that congestion pricing increases traffic congestion to the outer perimeter of the pricing zone is too simplistic. London and Stockholm experiences indicate that the entire trip mindset is altered from the point of origin, not just at the pricing-zone edge. That is, current motoring commuters bound for Manhattan would seek to change the entire trip from their front door or to a point nearby to allow for a public transit connection.

    Second, he is correct in his caution about our seemingly overtaxed transit system being able to handle increased ridership; however, I prefer to view this as an opportunity for the New York State’s MTA to upgrade their system.

    But more to the point: Even with a better transit system, drivers are simply too tied to their steering wheels to shift modes on their own. NYC must ply people out of their cars through disincentives. Mr. Irerra’s offering of the high, but certainly not astronomical, cost of gasoline as a devastating example of a congestion pricing paradigm fails to acknowledge the possibility that such higher prices may have a positive effect – lower vehicle miles traveled to conserve gas in the tank, reduced emissions, higher vehicle occupancies through informal carpooling, and trip combining (e.g., hopscotching from one destination to another rather than making multiple single-purpose trips), which decreases short trips.

    As a traffic engineer, my industry views these results as leading to a better quality of life.

    Third, he cited some recent measures in place on Staten Island as the paragon for the rest of the City, but here too he missed the mark. The Mayor’s task force offered basic strategies as short-term measures, which, while have helped on a local level as intended, are hardly systemic or “innovative” (as he claims) in effectiveness. Travel on Staten Island remains difficult, and congestion is far from solved, as evidenced by State Senator John Marchi’s introduction of a dramatic bill to create a program that would earmark a portion of a new-development fund for investment in transportation infrastructure.

    Mr. Irrera seemed to reason that because some are not willing to pay the price of solving the issue of congestion, even when the price is low, the problem is not really as serious as it has been made out to be, that solving it would cost more than it is worth.

    Well, using the New-York-like dense London example, people do accept traffic congestion as a serious problem because they have accepted paying for its remedy. Congestion has been reduced there, independent analyses show, carbon monoxide pollution is down, and more people are taking the bus. London also has more and newer buses funded by the increased revenue from the special fee ($180 million is being netted each year). Congestion has decreased in central London by 30 percent, with 50,000 fewer cars entering the area each day.

    And in smaller Stockholm, central-city traffic has been cut by 25 percent, personal injuries have been cut by an estimated ten percent, public transportation usage has risen by almost five percent – and businesses have only been marginally affected. In early May, a survey of 1,000 people found that over 60 percent of their residents are planning to vote to keep the charge in an upcoming fall referendum, and among people with their own companies, 68 percent supported keeping it.

    Fourth, regarding the practical solutions he proffered, the application of new technologies and adroit capacity expansions may present the best opportunities for managing congestion in the short-term by increasing flows and reducing travel delays. Yet, they will not reduce long-term congestion because of the induced demand phenomenon. But congestion pricing is an inevitable solution that offers the best opportunities for slowing the growth of congestion.

    But these worries should not overshadow the fact that revenues generated from road pricing can fund highway projects and mass transit improvements. He cited concern over possible social inequities regarding which groups would be hardest hit by road pricing, yet he lost sight of the economic imbalance of gasoline taxes, which generate roadway improvement revenues. Monies generated from fuel taxes do not levy charges at the time of travel – it is not fair for any motorist of any social strata traveling during non-peak hours to pay as much fee, through gasoline taxes, as those traveling during peak hours. Of note, there is now the added concept of a Fast and Intertwined Regular, or “FAIR,” lane, which proposes that low-income uses are given some credit each time they use the toll-free lanes during peak times.

    Possible social/economic disproportioning aside, over time as hybrid and electric vehicles gradually replace gasoline-fueled vehicles, a source of funds (gas taxes) to finance highways and transit systems will be limited.

    I do have concerns in instituting congestion pricing programs, such as what rates should be charged and at what times of day, how the charge might be collected, what exemptions or discounts should be allowed, and how the program would be administered. But these are ministerial, not functional or technological, in nature, and can be worked out. Furthermore, my worries are leavened because advances in technologies have made it possible to collect congestion tolls ( e.g., Fastoll, Fastrak) without worsening the problem by creating congestion at tollbooths. Moreover, dynamic pricing can provide real-time adjustments to pricing schedules. If a roadway becomes too congested, immediate communication can quickly update usage prices.

    So, in the end, variable pricing will generate significant revenues for the overall benefit of people of all income profiles, countermand the several decades’ growth of traffic volumes outstripping investments in road infrastructure, and help the relentless increase in traffic congestion. In fact, this traffic management tool is more, not less, fair to all users because non-users do not have to pay for the facilities they do not use or use during less-congested periods.

    For perspective, congestion charging is not radical socialism. Its genesis comes from free-market economist and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, who wrote an essay in the 1950s advocating road charges as a market mechanism to discourage unnecessary vehicle trips.

    The issue now is given that congestion pricing is technically feasible and effective, will it be possible to overcome the political and institutional resistance to its use? I hope so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *