Felix Salmon has been looking for a debater to take the opposing view that congestion pricing is no good, he really hasn't found an opponent, but took Meg McArdle shill for him.
I would have taking a slightly different approach than Felix, I would start with the total savings from congestion pricing, which is time spent at intersections waiting for traffic lights. I would use per capita cost of labor and count that time saved as a total gain.
How do traffic lights help in moving traffic under congestion pricing? Because traffic lights get the same technology, the little radio unit. Hence, the congestion price seller has access to light changes and can synchronize traffic lights to match congestion buyers. The total amount of time spent at an intersection should go way down, nearly to zero. A one hour commute in my home town would likely be reduced to a 1/2 hour commute. Savings? With the two way commute time at 50 minutes, the total daily commute should decrease by 20 minutes, or $7 for a worker at $20/hour
Second, gas savings. City driving, stop and go, causes an extra 30% of extra mileage, which should go away. For the average ten mile commute, that should premium should go away, saving $4 on gas and maintenance.
So, $11 off the top, per day comes to $220/month, and that should approximate the relative cost drivers are willing to pay to eliminate congestion.
Actually, except maybe in NY or SF, the real issue is that congestion pricing, being more efficient, will add utility to the auto and cause more people to commute by car than do now.
No comments:
Post a Comment