Somewhat clarified: 11:15 a.m. 2/11/09
Michael, I disagree that counting “each second you spend on the interstate” is such a great idea, although that may be overstatement in the article. I have no opposition to toll roads, but I do harbor concerns against such things as VMT taxes and using GPS or, to attempt to state a general approach, getting too cute with taxation such that a consumer cannot have a fair general expectation of the cost of an activity.
The rest of the original post refers more to the impression I had gotten from the article that the price system under discussion was one that would tax, in real time, drivers by congestion levels of the roads traversed, by every road traversed, and by the actual time spent on the roads whether in motion or otherwise ? and to the extent that the impression was mistaken, the response is moot.
Primarily, time is a cost. If you get stuck idling in traffic congestion, and you come to expect that, then that is a cost you pay. So is gasoline consumption, vehicular wear-and-tear, and traffic annoyance. We already “pay more” by driving during rush hour.
Besides, we also “pay” by having a backwards system of transportation funding and by playing political games with existing highway funding. See the study by David Hartgen, Professor of Transportation Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte; the following is from the press release:
Some regions are devoting too little money to the congestion problem, [study author David] Hartgen, [Professor of Transportation Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte,] said. The state?s largest regions are spending significant chunks of transportation funding on transit instead.
“In the Charlotte region, 43 percent of available dollars are proposed for highway projects, and the road improvements proposed would alleviate only one-third of the predicted increase in congestion,” he said. “Raleigh and Durham are allocating 73 percent and 49 percent, respectively, of their dollars to effective projects.” …
North Carolina does not need new funding to address the congestion problem, Hartgen said. “The report recommends using existing planned funds for congestion relief,” he said. “In some cities, ‘balance’ in transportation funding needs to be redefined. Instead of saying that transit programs should get 20-50 percent of funds, modes of transportation should get funds in proportion to their demand.”
Hartgen?s report offers nearly 20 recommendations for the state and numerous individual recommendations for each region. The statewide proposals include: changing the highway distribution formulas to account for congestion; appointing ?congestion tsars? and establishing congestion reduction programs for each region; using innovative highway and intersection designs; increasing the weight placed on congestion in selecting projects; implementing flex-time, ridesharing, and work-at-home programs; removing bottlenecks; improving intersection turns and signal systems; expanding incident management programs; using tolls and public-private partnerships; and planning land use and transportation capacity jointly.
