– Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor. The opinions expressed are her own. —
Christmas Day in most cities will be serene, free of weekday traffic jams as workers enjoy a Thursday that is free of normal routines. Many commuters wish that the free-flowing driving could last all year long. Traffic congestion wastes drivers’ time and gasoline, pollutes, reduces employment, and pushes businesses and shoppers away from cities.
There is hope. New global positioning system technology and congestion pricing can reduce traffic jams. In mid-January, 10,000 transportation professionals, including people from the incoming Obama administration, will convene in Washington D.C. at meetings of the Transportation Research Board, part of the National Academy of Sciences, to discuss solutions.
Road use varies with time of day. Time-of-day pricing can encourage drivers to shift non-essential trips to less busy hours, and eliminate some trips altogether.
London’s system of road pricing, with cars charged $16 to enter the center, is held up as a model for other cities. But its main flaw is that drivers pay flat fees, and are not charged by miles driven or by routes taken.
A better scheme would be to have drivers pay per mile, with higher charges on more heavily-used streets and in periods of heaviest congestion.
With prices of transponders and GPS falling, sophisticated and efficient systems are now possible. In some places they are optional, with drivers volunteering to participate in exchange for a reduction in license plate fees or even a credit against fuel taxes.
Here’s how this could work. GPS devices could be given to drivers who choose to participate—one per car—and drivers pay as easily as they are now paying for cell phones or E-ZPass tolls. Participating motorists could be exempt from license-renewal fees, but would pay road charges instead, charges that could vary by type of road used and time of day. Driving in rush hour along a busy road would cost more than driving on a little-used road late at night.
In Oregon, GPS-based distance measurements are designed to replace fuel taxes it now levies to pay for the use of its roads (for the full report, click here). Oregon would not immediately require all vehicles to have GPS. At least to start with, motorists would have a choice of paying either fuel taxes or mileage charges.
Efficiency in road pricing would relieve congestion. But it raises the politically thorny question of what to do with the revenue. In my view, cities must resist London’s unpopular inclination to use revenues to finance increased general spending, a measure defeated in New York and in Manchester, England.
To be acceptable to voters, a new road charging scheme should:
• Use advanced GPS-based systems, of the kind being pioneered in Oregon;
• Apply congestion pricing as part of a more general reform of financing road use, such as phasing out fuel taxes;
• Use monetary incentives, such as abolishing annual licensing fees or introducing new charging schemes on a voluntary basis; and
• Ensure that new revenues improve financing and use of roads, rather than for public transportation.
Employers could help, too. Some firms could enable employees to avoid high-priced peak driving rates by allowing flexible schedules or even telecommuting.
Critics claim congestion pricing is unfair to lower-income drivers. But if the system were voluntary, only those who wanted to participate would do so, and could receive rebates of fuel taxes.
Alternatively, low-income motorists could be given credits on their bills—cash incentives—to take part, ensuring that they have the opportunity to save money by avoiding peak-hour driving.
To reduce pollution and protect themselves from choking on traffic, cities must find a way to reduce congestion and enable people to travel more quickly and easily.
This Christmas Day, as we enjoy uncongested roads, we should think of a way to keep them like that all year round.
You can contact Diana Furchtgott-Roth at dfr@hudson.org. For previous columns, click here.
Pricing mileage is not an efficient way to reduce congestion and pollution. Basically it will just make various entities lots of money since people HAVE to get to work and to the store, etc. What we need is:
More railroads.
More commuter trains.
More buses.
More monorails.
More car pooling.
More bicycle trails.
More De-suburbanization.
Mass transit is the only efficient way to take traffic off the roads and make life easier for commuters. It might even stop the current trend of building ever more "forever" toll roads that punish the middle and lower classes.
Trackback
88 comments so far
Previous | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
Think traffic is bad now? Imagine what it’ll be like in a few decades when the U.S. population is projected to rise from its current level of 306 million to 450 million.
Man how to attack a problem the wrong way, you win the blue ribbon!. Use the current tax money such as fuel tax, license fees etc and used it to improve the public services… to the point that it would be obvious to a car driver to use the public services instead of using that money to pay other area of the government that are in deficit as they do today. Usually they want the car driver to use the public services but they are underfunded, too expensive and does not correspond to the expectation of the users.
Diana, it’s touching that you wrote in. You’re getting a little optimistic, though. The average IQ is 100. (Of course, when you meet a lot of the people with more, you wonder why they bother to measure it anyway.) Keep reading!
Socialista pillage and rape of the common man. Ask the common man…wishes he the traffic or the traffic and additional taxes. The hubris and self-absorbtion of these people knows no bounds. 10,000 of them meet to discuss congestion and pollution. Sanctimonious hypocracy.
We already have a way to control the amount of driving people do, it’s called the price of fuel. As fuel costs skyrocketed, the amount of motorcycles and bicycles at the office parking lot increased. The parking lots became easier to find open spots, and subway traffic increased. Once fuel prices dropped, the reverse occurred. I’d recommend additional tax on non-commercial fuel use. No need for costly GPS (which could very easily be hacked you know). Lastly, the idea of tax credits isn’t good…where does that money come from?
Folks
Agree or not (I completly and totaly disagree) please keep civil. There is no reason to insult her for having an idea on a problem that is in need of a solution.
Some of the ppl who made comments about this being a horrible un American ivasion of privacy (which it is no matter how you “cleanse” the data) and then go on a personal attack need to stop and think about what it is to be an American.
What a wonderful scheme to extract money from people. What we need is a general overhaul of government. A government is supposed to serve people, not the other way around. And specifically, we don’t need governemtn to devise all kinds of schemes how to get at more taxpayers’ money. The London $16 payment is nothing but a city tax.
Wow! What a dumb idea! I want your job Mam. I could come up with better articles than this brain dead one. Sheesh, what happened to America the land of the free? Where are we headed next? Are we going to restrict couples to only one or two kids like red China does? What a horrible column. You should be embarrassed!
Diana Furchtgott-Roth’s debates are some of the most biased and one-sided debates I have ever read.
I wonder how Reuters is even keeping her on its payroll ?
She needs to find some other work to do instead of writing BIASED debates on controversial topics…
This is the worst idea and it’s total invasion of privacy as accorded by our constitution. How about we reduce government spending and use that to improve our transportation infrastructure?? We need less government and less taxes. Ms. Roth, next thing you know you’ll be advocating security cameras on every corner like in London, also a terrible idea. What you’re advocating is totally the opposite the principles of the USA, freedom, privacy, etc…terrible idea.
Diana, isn’t the real issue that we seem to insist on continuing a self important lifestyle? When will we learn that individuals are not important? ANTS have figured that much out.
This is one of the most stupid, brain dead, elitist proposals. We taxpayers are forced to bailout financial and other companies in the hundreds of billions of dollars, if not potentially trillions of dollars. Now, amidst a severe receession and people losing jobs left and right, we are asked to pay more for using the highway system. Gee, this is a loser for sure. How can you stimulate the economy by forcing people to pay more when driving to work or doing essential commutes? The public transit system in most states are already over-crowded — in many localities, you can’t even find a parking space to park-n-ride, especially when you far away from the bus route.
I don’t care how you try to package this — this is s terrible idea. People should not be taxed for their movements. This is social engineering on steroids. Please, control your urge to run other people’s lives.
I have encouraged my employer (a major telecommunications provider) to promote communications solutions that will make “teleworking” more common. It is a major push for our marketing folks in 2009.
If we can extend company LANs to your house, provide conferencing abilities, even (if needed to make management feel better) let your boss see your shining face via a webcam, what is to prevent a large number of people from working from home? I think our marketing group is estimating that 25% of jobs can be done that way. That would have an enormous impact on traffic, gasoline prices, global warming, pollution, the US balance of trade, …
A visitor from another planet, where reason is the order of the day, would look upon our having paved so much of our landscape and then covered all that concrete with millions upon millions of two-ton hunks of metal, each one propelled by an absurdly inefficient motor and occupied by a single operator who thinks he or she is entitled and obligated to go faster than all the others, would stare in wonder. That same visitor would fall down laughing to learn that this is what we call our “transportation system”.
This whole mess is completely unsustainable, folks. The longer we spend debating about whether replacing it “costs too much” or “deprives us of freedom”, the more costly and unpleasant will be what fate imposes upon us.
I tend to agree with the writers who don’t like the surveillance and tax options Mrs. Furchgott-Roth advocates. It will only make owning a car more expensive when there are few real alternatives to the private automobile. But those commentators who think more highways and roads are the answer should know an axiom popular with traffic planners. That new highways make more traffic even though they are designed to handle more than the loads they are expected to carry. New highways encourage more driving.
Conversely - new taxes on major roads and highways could encourage people to use alternative side streets - the very roads the highways are designed to relieve. A city like New York has limited access to Manhattan via bridges and tunnels. They don’t need surveillance. But many cities built since the highways were created are really endless networks of roads of different types.
Cities like New York and Boston were congested even before the private automobile was created. They built subways and streetcars to relieve that problem - Our problem is we are now dependent on private automobiles to reach the greatest part of the metro areas - the suburbs. And those areas become congested with traffic as well.
Perhaps the new Administration should consider making new communities that disperse development. England built a lot of satellite towns in the fifties and sixties to disperse population density in the major cities. WE should be doing the same in the suburban areas. But suburban areas in this country try to freeze their development in single-family homes and commercial strips. The artificial scarcity of the zoned bedroom community is creating that urban congestion not only at the center but also throughout the suburban sprawl. It also creates the artificial scarcity of housing in suburban communities. Zoning legally allows them to limit housing stock.
The history of a city like New York or Boston showed increased population density as it grew and replaced formerly single family or town house development with apartment buildings. They also allowed the conversion of former private homes into multi family houses (sometimes to squalid slum like conditions). Most of that is not allowed by suburban zoning today
Europe and South America both have traditions of compact development. It is amazing to look at world cities like Sao Paolo on Google Earth and see how sharp and edge they make on the landscape. They are dense wherever there is development and then wide-open country outside that edge. Our cities don’t ever have a discernable edge. Except for Havasu City perhaps.
If we can’t change the characteristic of sprawl - only the Orwelian nightmare of the all-seeing traffic eyes seems to remain. And the best comment I see in these pages is the person who advocates work at home for most office jobs. Isn’t that the kind of support the computer is perfect for? Modern Office building can be converted to apartment buildings; they are only frames with partitions.
Investment in efficient rail systems in areas where congestion is worst seems like a more practical approach. Rail transport will attract many drivers who would see this as a less expensive, green alternative to fines and time allotments.
Friends,
Many of you have criticized my article on the grounds that they do not want to pay for driving. But we already pay for driving with fuel taxes. The idea I am proposing, the one pioneered in Oregon, would substitute mileage fees for gasoline taxes. So instead of paying a fixed amount per mile in gas tax, we would pay an amount that varies by road we use and by time of day. in addition, this plan would be voluntary.
Here’s how this worked in the pilot program in Oregon. Those drivers who wanted to pay by the mile received an GPS electronic transponder that went in the car to measure miles driven and time of day. When they filled up with gas, they swiped a device at the pump, and they paid for the gas without the gas tax. Their mileage charges were paid on a separate bill.
This does not have to violate privacy concerns. Private firms could be in charge of billing and the bill could be received without places and times driven.
One reader, Summer, asked my views on public transportation. I have nothing against it. Many people, especially in densely-populated cities, prefer it as a mode of transportation. Others, who live in suburban or rural areas far from bus stops or subways, cannot use it to get around. Many who need to pick up children or groceries also prefer cars. There is no reason for drivers to subsidize public transportation. Users of each type of transportation should cover their own costs.
Thanks for reading,
Diana
Ms. Furchtgott-Roth seems to desire an Orwellian society. Her idea scares the tar out of me. When we begin to gps enable all automobiles, motorcycles, and trucks, our movements are a simple to track via a GPS program by the government and other unsavory characters. What ever happened to America? Were we not founded on a desire to escape over-reaching government, freedom of belief, and the elimination of monarchs and tyrants?
I hope your idea dies a horrible death. Freedom to move about should be a guaranteed right. Taxing your every movement is a terrible idea.