{"items": [{"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694365972902", "anchor": "fb-694365972902", "service": "fb", "text": "There are already toll roads and parking meters - are you just suggesting that the prices should just be able to float more freely?", "timestamp": "1414595021"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694370478872", "anchor": "fb-694370478872", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ben: Parking meters are currently designed to encourage short-term parking; they usually have a 2hr max They're not a good fit for residential neighborhoods where people mostly want to park for 12+hr. You could use meters, with some better system than constantly sticking in quarters, but you would at least want some way that people could purchase parking in advance: coming home and having there be nowhere to put your car is pretty bad.
Tolls are usually set to be a low enough amount that no one will be dissuaded from taking the road. They're rarely set high enough to keep more people from crowding onto a road that's already fully jammed.
So while more freely floating prices is a part of what I'm advocating, the more important part is that the prices should be high enough that some people switch to alternatives and there's no longer a road space shortage.", "timestamp": "1414597798"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694371192442", "anchor": "fb-694371192442", "service": "fb", "text": "@Harriet: \"Paying for the roads would make using roads prohibitive for most people.\"
You don't set the cost of using the roads so high that no one uses them, you set it to the point that only enough people use them that there's not traffic.
\"We need to reduce government subsidies for roads and start government subsidies for public transportation.\"
I'm proposing something that's really very similar to that. Paying for driving and parking is the same as reducing the road subsidy, and if you give people money they can spend it on public transportation if that's what they want to do with it. But giving people money means they can instead keep the money and carpool, walk, or bike.", "timestamp": "1414598167"}, {"author": "Blake", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694372145532", "anchor": "fb-694372145532", "service": "fb", "text": "This is a good idea, but it'll be hard to get people on board since it doesn't feel like a Pareto improvement in the short-run even with distribution of revenues. The pain of higher prices happens immediately, while most of the benefits happen in the future once people have a chance to make adjustments like working closer to home.", "timestamp": "1414598669"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694373128562", "anchor": "fb-694373128562", "service": "fb", "text": "@Blake: \"The pain of higher prices happens immediately, while most of the benefits happen in the future once people have a chance to make adjustments like working closer to home.\"
This would be true with something like \"charge for things, and put the money into the city's general fund\" but in this case the pain of higher prices happens immediately but so does the benefit of receiving the money. We should be able to make it more palatable by distributing the money as soon as possible, potentially some of it even before it's collected.", "timestamp": "1414599393"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694377005792", "anchor": "fb-694377005792", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff *Immediately*? How does money get from parking meters to poor people immediately?", "timestamp": "1414601483"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694381302182", "anchor": "fb-694381302182", "service": "fb", "text": "> potentially some of it even before it's collected.
...I forsee a very particular failure mode, given some experience with term-based election politics, and I'm not certain in this case that it's preventable.", "timestamp": "1414603964"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694381312162", "anchor": "fb-694381312162", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ruthan: One way to make this \"immediate\" would be to start distributing the money before you start collecting it.", "timestamp": "1414603968"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694381526732", "anchor": "fb-694381526732", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ross: \"I forsee a very particular failure mode\"
Could you elaborate?", "timestamp": "1414604074"}, {"author": "Ross", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694382180422", "anchor": "fb-694382180422", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff: The one where pre-emptive benefit is disbursed, instituting the taxation scheme is then seen as unpalatable, and the whole artifice is repealed/delayed/silently never enacted.
All at the cost of 1) political will and 2) the municipal treasury, of course, but since these are less-immediate common goods (and, what's worse, *common* goods), the repeal can be easily popularized, and thus, made politically expedient.", "timestamp": "1414604478"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1414604997"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694383143492", "anchor": "fb-694383143492", "service": "fb", "text": "Sorry, that wasn't clear -- I actually am curious about how the money is transferred, not about what money is getting transferred.", "timestamp": "1414605088"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694383173432", "anchor": "fb-694383173432", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ross: \"The one where pre-emptive benefit is disbursed, instituting the taxation scheme is then seen as unpalatable, and the whole artifice is repealed/delayed/silently never enacted.\"
Have the first payment be just one estimated week's worth or something, and have it set up so all future payments come out of money collected.", "timestamp": "1414605106"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694383547682", "anchor": "fb-694383547682", "service": "fb", "text": "In particular, some kind of social service system would have to get involved, and it seems unlikely that they'd be able (or even inclined) to enroll everyone who'd be inconvenienced. (Or, you know, forced out of a job. You know, inconvenienced.)", "timestamp": "1414605182"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694383662452", "anchor": "fb-694383662452", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ruthan: How about people could choose between bank transfer and being issued a prepaid refilling credit card? And you can choose the frequency of refill, so either \"fewer transfers/noise\" or \"more money faster\".", "timestamp": "1414605201"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694383887002", "anchor": "fb-694383887002", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ruthan: \"it seems unlikely that they'd be able (or even inclined) to enroll everyone who'd be inconvenienced.\"
Just like you prove residency to get a parking permit currently, you'd prove residency to receive the payments.", "timestamp": "1414605256"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694384241292", "anchor": "fb-694384241292", "service": "fb", "text": "@Harriet: \"the roads are subsidized, while public transportation must pay for itself.\"
I'm not sure what you're responding to. I'm proposing we keep the current system but start charging for some things (ex: road use) and distribute the money. The monetary impact on people overall is neutral (as much money goes out as comes in) and on poorer people is positive (rich people will mostly be the ones paying, poorer people mostly the ones receiving). Then there are also the efficiency benefits, which include the buses improving dramatically because they don't have to wait in traffic and with higher ridership can have higher frequencies.
(Also, public transportation is also heavily subsidized.)", "timestamp": "1414605472"}, {"author": "Darrell", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/101028981063422977721", "anchor": "gp-1414605488291", "service": "gp", "text": "Here's how this looks to me - we raise toll rates to the point where only people above a certain income level can use the roads, in order to reduce congestion. The result is that people with sufficient income to drive on the road trade a portion of their income for a more efficient commute. Maybe it's a wash for them, with increased efficiency offsetting the tolls)?\u00a0\n
\n
\nI assume the income distribution is not sufficient to make the tolls affordable for any (or many) of the people below the certain income level, else we don't improve congestion. So those people have to find alternatives using the funds distributed from the higher-income drivers. That seems pretty disruptive. In many places, there's insufficient public transit to provide an alternative, but if that's taken into account (only raising tolls where there are sufficient alternatives), then it might work. Maybe in such cases, the funds could be used to provide free or reduced rate public transit rather than direct distribution, thereby keeping the funds in the transportation sector.\n
\n
\nHere in Georgia, there has been a fair amount of trials with toll roads and toll lanes that allow for some reduced congestion without removing free options. Might be a way to phase in such a process.\n
\n
\nAnyway, an interesting post, as always. Thanks!", "timestamp": 1414605488}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694384455862", "anchor": "fb-694384455862", "service": "fb", "text": "@Elliot: \"in practice the transfer payments don't happen\"
That's why I wrote \"The important thing is to include the money distribution in the same law as the money collection, to make sure you do have both halves of this.\"", "timestamp": "1414605584"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694385144482", "anchor": "fb-694385144482", "service": "fb", "text": "@Jeff I don't think anyone around here has to pay to park where they live, with the possible exception of people who live in fancy apartments where it's a rental surcharge.", "timestamp": "1414606057"}, {"author": "Ruthan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694385304162", "anchor": "fb-694385304162", "service": "fb", "text": "@Jeff We do pay for gas and PT, but they don't ask where we live when we do.", "timestamp": "1414606160"}, {"author": "Hollis", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694385638492", "anchor": "fb-694385638492", "service": "fb", "text": "Harriet: \"Subsidies for the roads is a form of paying rich people (who can afford cars, gas and insurance) and not poor people who really need transportation to and from work and school.\"
Maybe that's true in cities. I live 140 miles from the nearest real city and 70 miles from the nearest fake one. Public transport isn't an option up here because there aren't enough people to support it.
I'm writing to ask you to be careful to check your assumptions against your context. What's true in a city is often not true elsewhere.", "timestamp": "1414606405"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694386741282", "anchor": "fb-694386741282", "service": "fb", "text": "@Hollis: \"I'm writing to ask you to be careful to check your assumptions against your context. What's true in a city is often not true elsewhere.\"
To be fair, my post was implicitly focused on cities. Problems like \"not enough parking\" are kind of city specific.", "timestamp": "1414607134"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694386861042", "anchor": "fb-694386861042", "service": "fb", "text": "@Hollis (Capacity based parking and congestion charges would probably be $0 if you're 70 miles from the nearest city.)", "timestamp": "1414607225"}, {"author": "Mark", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694388722312", "anchor": "fb-694388722312", "service": "fb", "text": "If I understand right you would have higher tolls for rush hour? And low tolls at low use times?", "timestamp": "1414608724"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694389176402", "anchor": "fb-694389176402", "service": "fb", "text": "@Mark: Yes. Have the tolls respond to usage, so that traffic almost never goes above the ideal level for throughput.", "timestamp": "1414609047"}, {"author": "Mark", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694389755242", "anchor": "fb-694389755242", "service": "fb", "text": "Would it also rise in when there are congesting events like accidents?
Because I could see it getting kind of annoying. If I was half way through a long trip then suddenly, there was an accident, and I get a toll of $200 bucks.
Being able to predict cost seems pretty valuable.", "timestamp": "1414609436"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694390982782", "anchor": "fb-694390982782", "service": "fb", "text": "I am so pro this idea it hurts.", "timestamp": "1414610025"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694391352042", "anchor": "fb-694391352042", "service": "fb", "text": "@Mark: \"Would it also rise in when there are congesting events like accidents?\"
Road pricing has a short term benefit of encouraging people to take alternate routes or pass up a trip they were about to make and a longer term benefit of encouraging people to structure their transportation differently. I think the second one is much larger, which means raising prices in response to accidents or other unexpected delays isn't critical.
One option would be to have a publicly accessible \"expected price\" that let you put in a date/time/place and see the likely cost. This would take into account day of the week, holidays, road work, etc, and be calibrated based on its performance. Then set a maximum price of some multiple of the expected price, maybe 3x. So if your commute usually costs $10 then an accident can't push the price above $30.
(Still, I'm not sure what the right way to do it is. Ideally lots of different places would implement slightly different systems and we could see how they worked out in practice.)", "timestamp": "1414610278"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694391426892", "anchor": "fb-694391426892", "service": "fb", "text": "Seattle has time-dependent tolls on a major bridge and just implemented demand-based parking costs. So far they're not charging enough to make a big difference.", "timestamp": "1414610363"}, {"author": "Mark", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694391691362", "anchor": "fb-694391691362", "service": "fb", "text": "Lots of different systems sound like a real annoyance to the end users.
I like the idea in principal but it has to work reasonably well for uniformed people.", "timestamp": "1414610567"}, {"author": "Christopher", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694413537582", "anchor": "fb-694413537582", "service": "fb", "text": "Economists seem to think everything should be monetized (in part because it makes it easier to track and compare). But I see monetization as often, but not always, useful. This is a good example.
Your proposal will add financial inefficiencies because government costs will have to expand to assess proper tolls and regulate them, install and maintain toll collection methods, and hire accountants and others to manage the funds once collected. On the redistribution side, the government has to hire peopleto assess eligibility, investigate and prosecute fraud, and develop and maintain enrollment and distribution programs. Huge costs, even if you are able to use existing resources to a certain extent.
And is it worth it? The current system of traffic jams already harms the rich proportionately more than the poor: the poor,by missing out on an hour of work, lose a low hourly wage. The rich are losing potentially hundreds of times that. The high costs of housing in or near highly desired work destinations reflect the value of saved time already, and already filter traffic (how much and how efficiently, I don't know).
Arguing for more comprehensive, frequent, dependable, and lower-fare public transit makes sense, but I'm not sure that creating more government bureaus to enact petty wealth redistribution is worth it.", "timestamp": "1414624888"}, {"author": "Elizabeth", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694417559522", "anchor": "fb-694417559522", "service": "fb", "text": "Internalizing a negative externality is more efficient, not less.", "timestamp": "1414625987"}, {"author": "Kenny", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114009563726046237939", "anchor": "gp-1414626167128", "service": "gp", "text": "One problem with distributing these kinds of revenues is that some significant portion of people driving on roads and parking on streets aren't residents.\n
\n
\nLiving in Brooklyn and working in Manhattan, I think about the privelege to drive and park in the city afforded to those of little and moderate means as being a little perverse; and very much similar to the housing benefits to,which they're tied. On one hand, it's a completely unfair system because it's basically a lottery; none of these benefits are actually available to anyone that desires them, or even a large portion thereof. And on the other hand, the benefits are a trap for both those that enjoy them and also for everyone else that lives or works in the city \u2014 the former because they lose the benefits if they move and the latter because they're both indirectly paying for some of the benefits (housing), unable to afford others (owning a car), and incapable of making significant \nimprovements\n to any of the arrangements.", "timestamp": 1414626167}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694421546532", "anchor": "fb-694421546532", "service": "fb", "text": "@Elizabeth: Christopher's point is that internalizing it is only efficient if it's implemented well enough, and this may not even be possible to implement well enough to increase efficiency.", "timestamp": "1414628328"}, {"author": "Karl", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694441731082", "anchor": "fb-694441731082", "service": "fb", "text": "Christopher, you say: \"The current system of traffic jams already harms the rich proportionately more than the poor: the poor,by missing out on an hour of work, lose a low hourly wage. The rich are losing potentially hundreds of times that.\"
But that's not quite true.
The poor miss out on an hour of work and a low hourly wage, but they also have a HUGE risk of losing their jobs, which can be devastating and leave them homeless.
The rich lose more per hour, but they have minimal risk of losing their jobs (and really, how many rich people earn hourly wages to begin with?), and even if they do lose their jobs they presumably have hundreds of times more savings to cushion their fall and keep them solvent while they seek new employment.", "timestamp": "1414640343"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694464091272", "anchor": "fb-694464091272", "service": "fb", "text": "@Christopher: Arguing against this sort of change because it would be inefficient to start charging for something is fine. This post is trying to modify this sort of proposal to handle the \"this would hurt poor people\" problem.", "timestamp": "1414663963"}, {"author": "Mark", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694471631162", "anchor": "fb-694471631162", "service": "fb", "text": "Are there any examples of dynamic tolling successfully reducing conjestion? I imagine the time costs of traffic jams are significant, and your system would necessarily have to charge more then that cost.", "timestamp": "1414674391"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694476466472", "anchor": "fb-694476466472", "service": "fb", "text": "If the goal is least harm to poor people, I'd simply rebate the tolls as cash directly back to the drivers (less the road maintenance cost) - if this were structured with some basic minimum income it creates some aesthetically pleasing incentives - rather than paying a lot to drive during rush hour (which feels like getting gouged), you are getting paid *not* to drive, or to drive during off-hours only, or to not own a car and consume parking. I think that would be a lot more palatable politically", "timestamp": "1414678928"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694476865672", "anchor": "fb-694476865672", "service": "fb", "text": "@Ben: Why limit the rebate to drivers? If someone stops driving and takes public transit instead that's something we want to encourage.", "timestamp": "1414679100"}, {"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694477309782", "anchor": "fb-694477309782", "service": "fb", "text": "Oh I totally agree - instead of \"driver\" I should have said \"consumer\", which is everyone regardless of whether or not you personally drive a car - everybody benefits in many ways from roads. Same with parking, if you don't own a car it stands to reason that you should get a larger chunk of the parking revenue. Not that I am a fan of social engineering in general, but a solution that allows people to balance their parking/driving needs against their personally determined, innumerable other uses for money is more attractive than a tax plus a nebulous welfare benefit", "timestamp": "1414679522"}, {"author": "Don", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694522464292", "anchor": "fb-694522464292", "service": "fb", "text": "The word \"efficiency\" when used in any context involving government makes me smile (or more correctly, laugh uncontrollably).", "timestamp": "1414709692"}, {"author": "Nicole", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694579879232", "anchor": "fb-694579879232", "service": "fb", "text": "One way I could see this hurting the poor more, particularly if the prices were highly variable, is decision fatigue. They'd have even more stressful money choices to make (quite possibly leading to poorer choices later on), whereas wealthier individuals could pay the price without giving it as much thought.
http://www.nytimes.com/.../do-you-suffer-from-decision...", "timestamp": "1414732774"}, {"author": "Don", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/694363298262?comment_id=694873820172", "anchor": "fb-694873820172", "service": "fb", "text": "While I still have the underlying concern, I apologize for the snarky tone of my prior comment. I think the gazillion political ad repetitions over the past few weeks have put me in an altered state which should resolve itself a bit further into November.", "timestamp": "1414903648"}]}