Congestion Pricing Gets Support from Academics

Congestion pricing and tolling have the power to reduce commute times, and make our metropolitan transportation networks far more efficient and environmentally friendly.  But some have argued that tolls disproportionately burden lower and middle class drivers—a premise I and other transportation experts do not agree with.  And this morning, it looks like we have more proof.  The Los Angeles Times is reporting on a study conducted by UCLA and USC on the effects of tolling:

“The study comes from Lisa Schweitzer, an assistant professor of policy, planning and development at USC, and Brian Taylor, a professor of urban planning who heads UCLA's Transportation Studies center. Taylor, in particular, has long been a vocal advocate of congestion pricing. The study has been published online in Transportation, an academic journal.

“Their study is based on the toll lanes on the 91 Freeway in Orange County. The two authors found that medium- and high-income earners tend to use the lanes the most -- and therefore are the ones paying for the debt service on the lanes.”

Read the complete column here.

-Secretary Peters

Comments

[Ken Orski]

The Schweitzer-Taylor study conclusion that "medium- and high-income earners tend to use the lanes the most" contradicts the arguments of HOT lane advocates that HOT lanes are used by people "of all income levels." Regretfully, the study plays into the hands of critics that HOT lanes are "for the rich"

[Jeremy Siegel]

Saying that "medium and high income earners are the ones who use the lane's the most" is exactly why they are called "Lexus Lanes." The affluent can use the fast lanes, the poor have to use the clogged lanes. Instead of biting the bullet and actually spending government money to help all of the people (traditional road improvements/expansion), toll lanes allow a minority of people to buy their way to less traffic. The affluent will continue to fight tax increases because now they can purchase their convenience. This keeps them from having to have tax dollars go to, gracious sakes, the needy.

[Larry]

I'm not really sure I like the idea of paying a tax, which is what this congestion charge is, just to drive. It doesn't matter how you phrase it -- congesting pricing, tolls, etc. -- this is nothing more than a government levy. Bloomberg tried to do this in New York City, but the public opposed this and the State Senate, thankfully, nixed his plans.

Now, you can cite all the economists you want who use game theory to justify this tax, but the facts speak for themselves. London's congestion pricing scheme, which you probably base your proposal on, has been an absolute failure. The city government even admits this.

"The absolute level of congestion during 2007 was effectively identical to the representative value for conditions before the scheme was introduced in 2002," the report stated. "In other words, journey times inside the zone during 2007 were comparable to those prior to charging."

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2495.asp

[Jason]

There is also a bigger medium-income population than high-income so obviously, there's going to be more medium-income people who use the freeway...

[Michelle]

Hmm an alternate toll route alongside a congested roadway? Interesting concept, why not? Just how high IS this toll? I would also consider it a benefit that there is an uncongested lane available to emergency vehicles.

[Fred Williams]

Did the "equity" study of SR 91 HOT lanes compare the payments, benefits, and incomes of people using lanes that are not priced? If not, the study and its critics cannot conclude anything about the "equity" of HOT lanes.

[synjones]

I feel that transportation experts do not agree with contradicts the arguments of HOT lane advocates.

synjones
DUI